AN ANSWER TO Mr. J. G. his XL. Queries, Touching the Lawfulness, or unlawfulness of holding Church-Communion, between such who have been Baptised after their Believing, and others who have not otherwise been Baptised, then in their Infancy.  
As likewise touching Infant, and after Baptism.  
In which Answer, the undueness of such mixed Communion is Declared, the Unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism, and the necessity of after Baptism is Asserted.  
By W. A.  GAL. 6.4, 5. 
But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he hav● rejoicing in himself alone, and ●ot in another: for every man shall bear his own burden.  
LONDON, Printed for the Author, and are to be sold by H●n. Crip● L. Lloyd, at their shop in Pope's head A●●y   

To the Reader.  
HAd not the Truth been dearer to me then any man, I should not have appeared so publicly opposite to one, whom I so much love and honour, ac● I do my worthy good friend the Author of the Queries. But considering that Christ must be followed, owned, and pleaded for; in every Doctrine, dispensation, and command of his, when Providence puts men upon it, though in so doing they are many times forced to break Company, as to some ways, with dearest Relations, and persons of their greatest respects: and considering also, that myself as probably occasioning the birth of the Queries, have a greater engagement upon me then another, to anticipate as much as in me lies, the dis-service they may do to the truth of Christ; I have therefore the rather thought of returning some Answer to them. In which Answer, my respects to the Querist have caused me to decline all things that might bear hard upon him, so far as my faithfulness to the truth, would well bear at my hands.  
There is almost no end of Disputes, and it is not to be imagined what the wit of man can do, towards the making of things which are not, to seem as if they were, and things which are, to appear as if they were not: therefore was it, as it should seem, that Paul was jealous with a Godly jealousy over the Corinthians, lest the subtlety of men should carry off their minds from the plainness of the Gospel, 2 Cor. 11.3. For however there are deep things of God, that are not obvious to every eye; yet doubtless for things that concern even the meanest Babe in Christ, to believe and practise in order to his being numbered with the Saints, such as are the beginning Doctrines of Christ, as Repentance from dead Works, faith towards God, the Doctrine of Baptisms, and the like; God hath not been so sparing of his mind hereabout, as that men must make a journey from the one end of the Scriptures to the other, and lay both ends together, before they can discover the mind of God, as a ground of their faith and practice, as some would bear us in hand, even in the business of Baptism itself; as if Christ had made one of the first things a Christian should do, one of the hardest for him to know, whether he should do it so or so: but as concerning the principles of the Gospel, which every Christian must believe and submit to, What saith the Scripture? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is the Word of Faith which we Preach, Rom. 10.8. Which words (I pray you note) are spoken by the Apostle in opposition to them, who held That the Gospel was not a perfect Rule to a Christian without the Law; as they also do in effect who think the Gospel Rule for Baptising Believers, is not a perfect Rule to us, but that we must be beholding to the Law of Moses for the Circumcising Infants, to direct us about the Baptising of children: as if we should ask the twilight in the evening, whether it were light at noon day.  
Therefore Reader, let me persuade thee whosoever thou art, not to spend thy precious time and thoughts in following the Wilde-goose-chase of men, in their Meanderous disputes about these things of common observation and practice; but believe, and act, according to what thou findest plainly written in the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath not left his last Will and Testament behind him in any such dubious Words, as might occasion his children to fall out about it, but that an evil spirit many ages ago got into the Churches, (of which many good men, perhaps scarce any, are totally disposessed unto this day) which for some carnal respect, turned them aside from the plain way of the Gospel, into ways and practices of their own choosing; which that afterwards they might make good and justify, they, and those that tread in their steps, have strained their wits to find out Arguments and Plea's, that have so darkened and obscured things that otherwise of themselves were lightsome and plain, that it now proves a hard matter for many, to discern what is of Christ, and what is but of man.  
And this if thou dost, thou shalt not need to burden thyself with far fetched Arguments, to prove that to be lawful, which thou dost not find plainly written as many do; for thou wilt not need to Question at all, whether that way is lawful or not which thou findest beaten by the feet of the Saints of old, with the high approbation of heaven: and why should any man go about, when a nearer way presents itself to him?  
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning: if that which ye have heard from the beginning remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 1 John 2.24.   

A Word to such as are offended at the Way of Baptising Believers, because of that dis-union and disturbance it occasions, even among Believers themselves. Let such consider,  
1 THat One-ness in mind and affection, is as well the sin of the Anti-christian party in one respect, as it is the Duty of Christians in another: Rev. 17.13. These have one mind, and shall give their strength and power unto the Beast. 2. It is only one-ness in the truth then, that is commendable and . If so, then, 3. It is not those that keep close to the Doctrine of the New Testament and the laudable practice of the Saints, as at the beginning, as the Baptists do, that are to be charged with division making, but those that divide from the plain way of the Gospel, and those that walk in it. Rom. 16.17. Mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the Doctrine which ye have LEARNED, and avoid them. 4. Truth is to be preferred before peace; and heavenly wisdom is more, and better known by Truth, then by Peace: Jam. 3.17. The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable. Truth may not be balked, or sold at any rate, no not for peace itself: Pro. 23.23. Buy the truth and sell it not: Gal. 2.5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you. 5. Such whose ground on which they stand, is truth, though they ought with all sweetness, love, and meekness, to invite and persuade others to come over to them, yet may by no means departed 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. jer. 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 shall reveal even this unto you: Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. 6. Though endless Genealogies, and striving ●bout the Law, and the eating of meats and herbs, 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 jesus Christ, and are accepted with God, and aught to be approved of men, Rom. 14.17, 18. Secondly, not only Gospel Doctrines about matters of faith, but also matters of Gospel order, such as the Apostle calls Ordinances, appointments, 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 custom, neither the Churches of God, ver. 16. with ver. 2, 3, 4 5. etc. And if the Churches of God, then, had no such custom nei●her, as to sprinkle or Baptism little children, or to admit members to Church-communion without Baptism, does not the Apostles saying, here, though produced upon another occasion, evince their contention, sinful and unreasonable likewise, that shall plead for and practise such things as these, contrary to the custom of the first Churches, which in all laudable things were patterns to all succeeding Churches? The Apostle having in 2 Thes. 2. given notice of the Mystery of iniquity it● beginning 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 Apostasy, hath fallen out as well 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 well 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 Believed, 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 Entitled Philadelphia, touching the subject matter of that Book, being propounded Queri●-wise, there is I suppose little 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 employed. And therefore rather than ●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 address myself as follows.  

Querie. I.  
Whether is there any Precept or example in the Gospel of any Baptised Person, his disclaiming of Communion in Church-fellowship, with those whom he Judges true Believers upon account only of their not having been Baptised?  

Respondant.  
As for matter of Example for such a practice, there is I suppose none in Scripture, no more than 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 will not follow, that the one is any more unlawful than the other. For Scripture examples are matters of Fact, and therefore, there having been no such corrupt practice 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 only no Baptism at all, but even worse than none, as much as to commit an evil action is worse than to omit a good one; there being, I say, no such corruption as this then on foot, no more than there was the now Romish, the National, or Parochial Church-constitution then in being, there could be no occasion for any truly Baptised 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 than it no more follows, that it is unlawful to refuse communion with the one Church, than it is with the other, if there be no more ground in Scripture to constitute Churches without Baptism, than there is for the Romish, National, and Parochial constitution. The Querist then having himself disclaimed communion with the Church of Rome, and the Parochial Churches in England, though he have no example in scripture so to do, and yet hath done it, because there is no example in Scripture for such Church-constitution as that of Rome and England is, he might as well disclaim communion with Churches built upon Infant Baptism too, since there is no more example in Scripture of such a Church constitution, than 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 Baptised after they had Believed.  
2. As to matter of Precept; though there be no literal or sillabical Precept for Baptised persons to disclaim communion in Church-fellowship with unbaptised ones, no more than there is for disclaiming communion with the falls 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 Parochial Churches in their way, than I will say the same concerning Baptised Believers, their refusing communion with unbaptized.  
If it be demanded, what precept doth virtually require such a thing as non-communion of Baptised with unbaptized?  
I Answer, 1. For those that plead the Precept of circumcising Infants under the Law, as virtually requiring the baptising 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 manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, Gen. 17.14. for what less can be meant by that expression, shall 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 cutting off by death, is thereby intended, than I say, that is exclusive of Church-communion likewise; for the Major includes the Minor, and it is more to be cut off by the hand of death, from all opportunity of future communion with the Church, than it is for a man to be debarred present communion, only in order to his repentance, that he might be regularly capable of communion afterwards.  
But whether such a cutting off be in that place intended or no most certain it is, that such a cutting off is enjoined, Exod. 12.48. where it's said, speaking of the Passover, That no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.  
And therefore, if it be good reasoning from circumcision to Baptism, (which if it be not, let the Pedobaptists bid adieu to their cause of Infant Baptism, which is built and bottomed thereupon) than it follows undeniably by way of Analogy, that as uncircumcision 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 horns 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 Infant's circumcision, to Infant's Baptism.  
2. I would argue further thus: the same Law which enjoins the learned Querist, and others of his way, to deny the privilege of their Churches to other Believers that are not of their Churches, but do scruple their way, and cannot submit to their order, the same Law does enjoin baptised believers, not to admit into fellowship with them in Church privileges such persons, though believers, as do scruple their order and way of being baptised 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 privileges, 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 Believers to such communion without Baptism, if admitted as good, would overthrow and levelly the Order and Discipline of particular Churches. For if one single person may be admitted 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, than 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 enjoined 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 Baptised, 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 enjoined by Christ, viz. that Believers should first be Baptised, before admitted 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 Baptising 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 Baptise them: which injunction therefore, as some well observe, is put by a participle of the present tense; Teach all Nations, Baptising them, etc. 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 belief of the Gospel, than 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 admitted, to be guilty of, is a piece of uncharitableness, more than I am willing to communicate in.  
2. The Apostles, according to the Commandment of Christ, beginning first at jerusalem to put this Commission of his into execution, Luke 24.47. did act accordingly. And doubtless their acting upon this Commission, aught 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 departed from it assoon as they began to act upon it; which would be too great an audaciousness in any man once to imagine. If so, than what is more plain, then that the Commission of Christ to them, was to teach and baptise first, and to admit into Church fellowship thereupon, and not otherwise; as is visible in that prime example of theirs, Acts 2.41.42. Then they that gladly received his Word, were Baptised, and the same day there was added unto them, about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in Prayers. Where you see, they were, first, taught by Preaching, secondly, did gladly receive the Word by which they were taught, thirdly were baptised, fourthly, were added unto them, viz. the Church, ver. 47. fifthly, continued steadfastly in the Apstles Doctrine and fellowship, etc. Addition to the Church then, and fellowship in it, did follow baptism, and not go before it, according to the actuated commission of Christ Jesus. And why should any servants of his, then, desire to vary from it, unless they presume themselves wiser than he, and hope to find a greater good in their own way, then in his?  
3. Baptism must needs precede the enjoyment of Church privilege, in Church fellowship, in the Apostles days, because it was then, as it ought still to be, a means of planting men into Christ, or into the body of Christ the Church. Hence they were said to be Baptised into Christ, Galathians 3. vers. 27. and to be baptised into his death, Romans 6. v. 3. and to be planted together into the likeness of his death, upon that account, ver. 5. of the same chapter. And what does a planting and a planting together import, but the first putting together of Christians, in order to their growing together in Christ? and yet all this is done by Baptism. And may you not therefore, as well suppose trees to grow together, before they are planted together, as to suppose Christians to grow together before they are planted together, and yet planted together they are by Baptism: not into this or that particular Church, but into that one Church of Christ, which is distributed into several parts and particular Societies. Hereupon it is, that Baptism is called one of the Principles, or beginning Doctrines of Christ, and likewise part of the Foundation, Heb. 6.1, 2. And what house stands without its Principles, or is built without a foundation?  
Nay the Apostle 1 Cor. 12, 13. doth plainly declare Baptism, to be of so constant and universal a use as to the inchurching of persons of all sorts, ranks, and degrees, that were incorporated at all in his time, as that none came into the Church, but through this door. For he says, they were all Baptised into one body, (i. e. Church body) whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free. And if any man can name any persons, that were neither Jews nor Gentiles, neither Bond nor Free, than I will confess, those possibly might be brought into the Church without Baptism. But otherwise, though they were Jews, and had been formerly entered in their Church by circumcision; yet when they became of the Gospel Church, it was not without Baptism. Or if Gentles, a people sometimes a far off, yet by Baptism upon their believing, were brought into capacity of the same enjoyments with the Jews. If free, as Masters, yet not admitted without Baptism: if bound as servants, yet made equally capable of the same Church privileges by Baptism: For so he says again, Gal. 3.27, 28. As many of you as have been Baptised into Christ, have put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Gentle, bond, nor free, male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus, i. e. all having thus put on Christ, are become all one in him.  
Some indeed seem somewhat to doubt, whether the Apostle speaks of water Baptism, when he says, That by one Spirit we are all Baptised into one body; or whether he does not rather speak of the Baptism of the Spirit without water.  
Though these indeed are the doubtful thoughts of some, contrary to the generally received opinion of men upon the place, yet I must do my honoured Querist that right, as to quit him from fellowship in that opinion, and to acknowledge that he not long since in a discourse upon the same words, did teach the Auditory to understand, by being Baptised by one Spirit into one Body, and by being made to drink into one Spirit, (as is expressed in the latter part of the verse) that the Communion which Believers have with the holy Spirit in the two Ordinances, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, is intended by the Apostle; and this he did, without doubt to me, according to the truth. For what else can be intended by drinking into one Spirit, but the Saints communion in Spirit in and by the Supper? drinking by a Synecdoche, being put both for eating and drinking. If so, why should we not as well understand the fi●st Ordinance Baptism, in its proper sense for water Baptism in the former part, as the latter Ordinance the Supper, in its proper sense in the latter part of the verse? Neither can we reasonably understand the same thing to be intended by being Baptised by one Spirit, and by drinking into one Spirit, (which yet we must do, if a being endued with the Spirit were all that is here meant,) for they are said to be Baptised into one body, but to drink into one Spirit; and surely Baptising and drinking here, are no more the same, than the Body and the Spirit are the same, into which they are said respectively to be Baptised, and to drink. But clearly the Apostle seems hereby to intent to mind these Corinthians, how that by means of the same spirit working upon all their hearts, they became members of the same body through Baptism, and that being of the Body, they came to have communion in Spirit, or with the Spirit in the supper. And that which will yet further serve to evince, that it is not a Baptism with the spirit, but a Baptism with water that is here meant, is this, because the spirit is here set forth by the Apostle as the Agent or working cause, and Baptism as the effect; and it is ridiculous to make both cause and effect the same thing. It is true indeed, the scripture doth speak of a being Baptised with the spirit; but when ever it does so, it still declares either Jesus Christ, or God the Father, as the Agent Baptising with the spirit; but never as making the spirit both the subject matter wherewith, and also the Agent whereby men are Baptised in the same Baptism. See for this, Mat. 3.11. Mark. 1.8. Luke 3.16. Act. 1.4, 5. with Luke 24.49. Acts 11.16.  
The premises therefore considered, I hope it will sufficiently appear and that to the satisfaction of any indifferent man, that in the primitive times, none were admitted to Church-communion without Baptism; and if so, have we in these day's reason to do any other wise? Ought not that which was a reason to them not to admit Church-members into Church-fellowship without baptism, to be a reason unto us likewise to steer the ●ame course? unless we will say, those Gospel rules by which ●hey ordered themselves in those times, were binding only to Christians of the first ag● of the Gospel, but not to us now; ●nd if so, then farewell all Go●p●●● Obligations; for if we may ●ake liberty to cast away one Law of Gospel's Order; and Worship, then why not two, and so three, and in the end all? ●o which indeed these l●sser beginnings do truly tend, and I would to God it might be more considered, and laid to heart.   

Querist.  
How can this ever be proved, that there were no believers unbaptised in the Apostles days?  

Respon.  
I know none that does affirm any such thing, as that a be●ever was not at any time while he was a believer unbaptised; ●ny doubtless men were believers first, and then were bapti●ed after they began to believe. But if the Querist intends ●hus, how will it be proved, that no believer in Church-fel●owsh●p was unbaptiz d? Th●n the answer is, that it is proved by those and the like Scriptures lately quoted, where it's said in ●ffect, that all of all ●orts, ●●●ks and d●gr●●s, that were of the ●ody, were baptised into that body, and if ●ll were of the body by it, than none were without it.    

Querist.  
Be it granted, that th●re w●●● no believ●●● 〈…〉 the Apostles days, upon what ground n●●w●●● 〈…〉 practise ●ow queri●● be justified 〈◊〉 maintained. 〈…〉 certainly know, and can satisfy themselves, 〈…〉 had been such believers in these times 〈…〉 unbaptized, or un●●●● baptised ●y those ●●ly 〈…〉 have declined s●ch communion with them, as that spe●●●●●.  

Respon.  
Believers now, are doub●●● no 〈…〉 believers were then; (I do not mean 〈…〉 nu●●●●) and if so, than the same ground that did satisfi●●ap●●z●● believer, then, in not joining in Church fellowship 〈…〉 unbaptized, though they di● be●●eve 〈…〉 (for they did believe before they were baptised, and yet were not admitted into Church communion till after baptised, as was proved above) will serve to satisfy baptised believers now, touching the lawfulness of the same practice, 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 proceed from their directions and instructions, and consequently from the Lord himself, as we are taught to infer, 1 Cor. 14.37.     

II. Query.  
Whether can it be pro●ed from the Scriptures, or by any argument like to satisfy the conscience of any tender and considering Christian that the Apostles, or other Christians in their days, would have declined Church communion with such persons, whom they judged true believers in Christ, only because they had not been baptised 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 baptised, but it appears they did do it; for it sufficiently appears that men and women did believe before they were baptised, 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 baptised, their believing notwithstanding; if so, what is a not admitting less, than 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 baptism, runs thus:   

Querist.  
Considering that the Apostle Paul expressly saith, That in Jesus Christ (i e. under the Gospel or profession of Jesus Christ in the world) neither circumcision availeth 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 keeping of the Commandments of God, 1 Cor. 7.19. meaning, that under the Gospel, neither did the observation of any external Rite or Ceremony, Circumcision by a Syneedothe Specie, being but for all kind of external 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, rendered 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 itself in keeping the Commandments of God.  

Respon.  
1. What does the Querist mean, when he says, that under the Gospel the observation of any external rite or ceremony, avails a man nothing towards the commending of him to God, nor does the want of it prejudice his acceptation 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 Gospel, Baptism and the Supper, unprofitable and vain, 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 means, that they avail not comparatively, or else in the business of justification; our what then, will it follow, that because these external rites, baptism and the like, do not avail unto men's Justification when they are observed, that therefore they are not necessary unto Church-communion? for did the external Rite of Circumcision under the Law (which is the thing by which the Querist calculates the validity of baptism under the Gospel) avail any more to justification, th●n baptism does now; and yet how irrelative soever it was to justification, yet it was so necessary as to Church-communion, as that Church-communion wa● not to be had w●●hout it, Gen. 17.4. Exod. 12.48. if so, then how can the Querist estimate the usefulness 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 John's baptism was taken for a declared rejecting the counsel of God in the Gospel, Luk. 7.30. and how a refusing the baptism of Christ, could by the same rule be deemed less, I understand not, unless you will suppose that the counsel of God was not in the baptism of Christ, as well as in the baptism of John.  
2. Why should our Querist estimate the Apostles judgement of Gospel Rites by what he speaks of Circumcision? since the one was abolished, and the other established by the same Gospel; or does it follow, that because the Apostle doth oppose Faith to circumcision, that therefore Faith must be opposed to Gospell-Ordinances, or external Rites, as he calls them? does not a Gospel's Faith exclude circumcision, and yet include baptism, as it doth all other precepts of the Gospel? and therefore pity it is, that such friends as Faith and Gospell-Rites are, should be set together by the ears.  
3. Why does the Querist make circumcision a Gospel-Rite, which is indeed a Rite abolished by the Gospel? or does not he account it a Gospell-Rite, when he says, that under the Gospel, circumcision by a Synecdoche Specie, is put for all kind of external rites or ceremonies; or which I think is the same, that under the Gospel, and the profession thereof, neither did the observation of any external rite or cer●mony, circumcision by a Synecdoche Specie, being put for all kind of external rites and ceremonies, etc. and if for all kind, then certainly for Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies, for they are some of all; neither surely would any man (much less the Querist) be so impertinent, as to assert no external Rite available under the Gospel, because circumcision is not, unless he held circumcision to be as much a Gospell-Rite as any other, since it is against common sense, to say that which is greater is not available to such or such an end, because that which is less is not; and yet more irrational would it be, to assert the non-availablenesse of that which is, from the non-availablenesse of that which is not, which yet would be the trip of the Querist, if he should not hold that circumcision had some manner of institutive being, yea and as eminent a being under the Gospel, as any other Rite of the Gospel hath.  
But if it be the judgement of the Querist indeed, that circumcision is put by the Apostle as a Synecdoche Specie of Gospell-Rites, i. e. of the same kind with them, and as a part of them, then why does he not practise it as such? or if he judge it to be none of them, then why does he make it a Synecdoche Specie of them? or why does he estimate all Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies by that, and by what is said by the Apostle concerning that? I confess I should as well as the Querist hold it an unreasonable thing for any baptised believer to disclaim Church-communion with those that are unbaptised, only because unbaptised; if I deemed a man's being unbaptised of no worse consequence than his being not circumcised. Truly I cannot but think that cause hard-bested, that is fain to beg its bread out of such desolate places, as is that of circumcision for one, whose foundation was long since razed by the hand of the Gospel to the very ground.  
4. And lastly, but why also does the Querist oppose the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospel, or under the Gospel, to the keeping of the Commandments of God? or does not he do so? who makes the observation of the Rites or Ceremonies of the Gospel to avail nothing towards the commending of a man to God, and yet withal, does make the keeping of the Commandments of God, as proceeding from Faith available hereunto, which constructively, clearly supposes the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospel to be none of the Commandments of God. That the Querist makes the keeping of the Commandments of God, as proceeding from Faith, available as to a man's acceptation with God, in that very sense in which he had utterly denied the observation of Gospell-Rites and Ceremonies to be available, appears plainly in these words of his, viz. But that which was all in all unto men, and which availed any thing in an● under the Gospel, that which being found in men ●endred them accepted and approved with God, and the want of it disapproved, was such a kind of Faith (not such or such a kind of cer●mony, or such or such a kind of baptism) which by the mediation or intervening of that heavenly affection of love, uttereth and expresseth itself, in keeping the Commandments of God; so that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Gospel (baptism being there named for one) according to the tenor of this writing, must be none of the Commandments of God; (which yet I dare say is none of his opinion) or else the keeping of them, as produced by Faith and love, must be available to a man's acceptation with God, as well as the keeping of any other his commands, which yet to say, and it is the truth, doth utterly contradict what was said before, in denying the observation of the ceremonies of the Gospel to be available unto any such purpose.     

III. Query.  
Whether can it be proved by any text or passage of Scripture, either directly, or by any tolerable consequence, that Christian Churches were in the Apostles days constituted by baptism, or that none were reputed members of Churches, or admitted into Christian communion with those who were baptised, but only such wh● were baptised likewise?  

Respon.  
It hath been already proved (as I conceive) in the answer to the first qu●ry, by some text or passage of Scripture, either directly, or by some tolerable consequence, or rather both directly, and also by clear and pregnant consequence, that Christian Churche● were in the Apostles days constituted, if not by baptism, yet ●ut without baptism, and consequently that none were 〈◊〉 into Church fellowship but such as were baptised; a●● 〈◊〉 ●efore having proved this already, it is not necessary to 〈…〉: But because such a thing as this, is not so 〈…〉 i● the eyes of those that plead it, as the Que● 〈…〉 in those words following, where he says, that that text Acts 2.41. is commonly, and only so far as he knows, preceded for proof of such a thing; I shall briefly point to several other texts, by which it will appear, that the Church's i● the Apostles days were not constituted without baptism.  
That the Church of Rome was baptised, and therefore not constituted without baptism, appears Rom. 6.3. And so the Church of Corinth: the first beginning of that Church, so far as we read of its beginning, was laid in baptism, Acts 8.8. 1 Cor. 1.13.14.15.16. & 12.13. So the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 3.27. the Church of Ephesus, Acts 19.1.5. was surely begun by those twelve Disciples whom Paul baptised, or some that were with him. So also the first foundation of the Church at Philippi, was laid in baptism; for Lydia and her household, the Gaoler and his household, as you will perceive by that part of history, Acts 16. from ver. 12. to 34. who were the first fruits of the Gospel there, were baptised. The like may be said of the Church of Colosse, chap. 2. ver. 12. and so of the Hebrews, Heb. 6.1.2. Acts 2.41. and therefore surely the Querist did not need to challenge us upon tolerable consequence, to make proof that Christian Churches were constituted by baptism, or by baptised persons in the Apostles days, nor yet to presume, that Acts 2.41. was all the Scriptures that could be pretended to prove such a thing.  
The Querist therefore supposing all our strength for this cause, to be in that one Scripture of Acts 2.41. he tries sundry ways (I will not say, as Delilah did with Samson) to bereave us of this our strength, as follows.   

Querist.  
Considering that that Text Acts 2.41. (commonly, and only, so far as I know pretended for proof of such a thing) doth not ●o much as colour, much less cotton with such a supposal or conclusion, viz. That Christian Churches were constituted be baptism 〈◊〉 the Apostles days, the tenor of the place being only this, than they that gladly received his word were baptised, and the s●●e day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.  

Respon.  
However this text doth not now seem to the Querist, either to colour or to cotton with the conclusion now oppos●● by him; yet let me make bold to remember him, (because I judge his first thoughts his best thoughts, as unto this) that it is not many years since it did cotton well enough with the foresaid conclusion, in the judgement and apprehension even of the Querist himself, who in an Epistle to a friend, a copy whereof I obtained) had this saying upon this very text, viz. Evident it is, that those that were added to the Church were baptised before this was affirmed of them (viz. that they were added) now being baptised, and that in an orderly and right way, (as ye will not deny) this did immediately qualify them for Church-fellowship, according to your own grounds, and the truth itself. And again a little after, speaking of a Church covenant, he thus saith; That it is not lawful before baptism is evident, because it is not lawful for a church to receive the unbaptised in to fellowship with them, as members of their body, neither is there appearance, example, or warrant in the Scripture for such a thing.  
But it may be the Querist upon second thoughts hath found cause to alter his former opinion hereabout, (and a man may at any time with honour change for the better) and therefore let us weigh and consider his reasons, why he is of another mind now, which he delivers, as follows.    

Querist.  
For 1. It is not here said, That all they that gladly received the Word, were baptised, but indefinitely only, they that gladly received, etc. Now indefinite expressions in Scripture, are not always equipolent to Vniversalls, but sometimes to partitives or particulars.  

Respon.  
1. Though indefinite expressions are not always equipolent to universals, yet many times they are, as the Querist doth tacitly grant, in saying only, that they are not always equipolent, implying, that many times they are, which indeed is a truth obvious in these Scriptures (and as I conceive hu●dreds more) Mat. 20.23. Mark 2.17. & 8.9. Joh. 5.25. ●9. & 17. 2●.23.24. Rom. 8.8. & 11.23. 1 Cor. 7.29.30.31. & 15.18.48. Gal. 3.7.9. & 5.21. and therefore it in no wise follows, that because ●uch an indefinite expression as is here used, is not always of an universal import, or signification, that therefore it is not so here.  
But 2. The coherence of the words considered, it cannot reasonably be otherwise conceived, but that they, is all they, that gladly received the word were baptised: For the Apostles exhortation and counsel to the whole multitude was, that they would repent and be baptised EVERY one of them for remission of sins, ver. 38. and therefore if their receiving his Word gladly, import nothing el● but their believing, embracing, and willingly obeying his Word, (as I suppose nothing less is hereby meant) than it is impossible reasonably to conceive, but that every one of those who gladly received his Word were also baptised, because that word which they did receive enjoined them so to be; and for the● not to have been baptised, as the case then stood, they would have been so far from receiving his word gladly, as that it must have been said of them, instead of that which is said, as it wa● said of the Pharisees and Lawyers, That they rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and were not baptised, Luk. 7.30.    

Querist.  
2. Whether is it here said, nor is it a thing in itself much probable, that ONLY they who were baptised, were added unto them, (i. e. to the pre-existent number of Discirles) but only and simply, that there were the number of three thousand added the same, day.  

Respon.  
1. It is to be noted, that the Querist says only thus much; that it is not much probable etc. it should seem then in his opinion, it was somewhat probable, though not much, that only they that were baptised were added to the church; and if it be something probable, though not much in his opinion, wh●se endeavour it is to render it improbable, I believe it will be found much probable in their thoughts, that shall be indifferent Judges of the case.  
For 2 Of whom does Luke here speak, when he said, that the same day there added unto them about three thousand souls: Have we any reason in the world to imagine that he intends any other persons than those of whom he is speaking, to wit, those that gladly received the Word, and were baptised? For what occasion is here ministered to any man's thoughts, by any thing mentioned in or about the text, to pitch upon any other than those very persons, the mention of whom doth next and immediately precede the words in question? and which looks like the most genuine and least strained sense, either to say, Then they that gladly received his word were baptised, and the same day there was added [of them] about 3000. souls, or to say, there was added of them, and some others (of whom yet there is no mention made) about three thousand souls? But it seems we must expect to have nothing granted, though never so probable, that favours our cause, unless every word and tittle amount to the evidence of a demonstration: It were well indeed if our friends would themselves walk by the same rule, and give to us the same measure they require of us.  
But I pray, who, or what should they be, besides those that gladly received the word, and were baptised, that you suppose were added to the church?    

Querist.  
Within which number, viz. of 3000. it is the probable opinion of some, that the children and families of those, who are said to have gladly received the word, are comprehended, it being no ways likely, scarce possible, that 3000. men should distinctly hear the voice of a man speaking, especially unless we should suppose, that those 3000. stood nearest unto him that spoke, 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 baptised, were indeed part of that number of 3000. that were added to the church; or to the Discsples, (as he says it is the probable opinion of some that they were) than I demand, I say, whether these children and families were baptised or no? If he shall say they were not, than he puts to rebuke another of his opinions, which is, that when believers themselves were baptised, their children were baptised also; to the belief of which he would persuade us, at least as probable, in his 24. Quaere from Acts 16.15.33. 1 Cor. 1.16. If he say they were baptised, 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 baptised 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 else if they were adult ones, they might gladly receive the word, and be baptised as well as their parents) it sufficiently appears, in that it is said, They (i. e. they that were added, as well as they to whom they were added) continued steadfastly 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 steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayers; and if not, than 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 rendered more than probably, to be a weak, groundless, and erroneous opinion.  
3. To remove that doubt touching the improbability, that 3000. men should distinctly hear the voice of a man speaking, unless we will suppose them to stand nearest to him that spoke. 1. Evident it is, that they did hear, and so hear, as to receive the word gladly, but whether they were nearest to him that spoke or no, is more than 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 hear and convert in the selfsame 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, baptised, and added to the church the selfsame day.  
3. Neither do I see any necessity to hold, that all these 3000. that were in one day converted, baptised, and added to the church, were thus converted and baptised 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, etc. and doth not this employ, 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 wonderful works of God, ver. 6.7.8.11. All which things considered I think it will not be irrational to suppose, that others besides Peter might be instrumental 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 baptised, although this addition be not mentioned till after their baptising. It is ten degrees mere probable, that their believing or Discipleship, which were precedent to their baptising, and not their being baptised, were the reason and ground of Luke's saying, they were added to the Church; considering first, that the original, 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 baptism, and so much is in effect acknowledged by the Querist himself, in that he says, this addition is not mentioned till after their being baptised, and therefore their baptism must needs go before their addition to the church, unless 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 baptised, which I suppose no man is so void of common sense as to believe.  
And if their baptism did precede their addition to the church, then why does the Querist strive so as he does, to interest their believing or Discipleship, with exclusion of their baptism, as the reason and ground of Luke's saying, they were added to the church? For if he does not exclude baptism in recounting the reason of that addition, than 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 ground of their addition to the church, but not the only one, f●r Luke mentions their being baptised, as well as that; and why should any man go about to separate them? The question is not, whether faith or baptism is the original, main, and principal ground of the holy brotherhood amongst the Saints, as he calls it; we willingly grant, (and therefore could have spared him the labour of proving) that faith hath the precedency herein: But what will it therefore follow, that because believing is the original and principal ground of the holy brotherhood, or church-relation, that therefore baptism is none at all? does he not know, that though the Apostle gives repentance from dead works, and faith towards God, the first place in the foundation, yet he assigns baptism its place, and standing next to them in the same foundation, Heb. 6.1.2.    

Querist.  
2. That it cannot be demonstratively proved from the Scriptures that those hundred and twenty Disciples, Acts 1.15. unto which it is here said, that 3000. were added, were or had been all of them baptised; nor can it any whit more be proved, that the Apostles themselves mentioned Acts 1.13. had been baptised, then that John the Baptist was baptised.  

Respon.  
1: Suppose the Scripture no where mentions where, when; or by whom those 120. Disciples were baptised, is this any good reason to conclude therefore, that they were not baptised at all, or will the Querist think, that becaase we do not (a● to the best of my memory we do not) read in Scripture of the baptising of the Church of Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, that therefore none of these Churches were baptised? or because we read only of the baptism of 3000. of the Church at Jerusalem, that therefore all the rest, when that Church increased to the number of 5000. Acts 4.4. yea to many thousands Acts 21.20. were unbaptised? Is it not enough that the Commission was to baptise all of all Nations, who were first made Disciples by teaching, Mat. 28.19. and that we have frequent mention in the Scriptures, of the Apostles and other Disciples, their walking and acting according to this Commission; I say, is not this enough to cause us to conclude, that all those that were Disciples indeed, and knew it to be their duty to be baptised, were baptised accordingly, unless we will be so uncharitable towards them, as to conceive them guilty of living in the breach of one of the known precepts of the Gospel: Neither can we reasonably imagine any of them to be ignorant of this, viz. that submitting to baptism was their duty, inasmuch as this was one of the first things they were directed to do, in order to their becoming Christians, Acts 2.38. & 8.12. & 16.33. & 22.16.  
2. It should seem that these 120. Disciples had continued with Christ, and kept company with the Apostles, all the times that Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day, in which he was taken up from among them, as we have it, Acts 1.21.22. and if so, is not their being baptised sufficiently signified, where it is said of Christ, that he baptised, and all men came to him, John 3.26.22. unless we will suppose, that he caused others to be baptised that did not follow him, and did excuse those that did?  
3. As for the Apostles themselves, who were mentioned Acts 1.13. to suppose them not to be baptised, is to suppose them to be Pharisee-like, who as our Saviour says, did bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be born, and lay them on men's shoulders, when they themselves would not touch them with one of their fingers: for we see they imposed baptism as a duty upon other men, Acts 2.38. and therefore how can we think so evil of them, as not to conceive that they had begun to them in the same way themselves, or if they had not, might not that multitude at Jerusalem, upon whom they urged it as their duty, have said unto them, Physicians heal yourselves? or was it any less the duty of such men, who became Apostles, then of other men? since we find Paul that great Apostle pressed to it by direction from Christ Jesus, before he was to act as an Apostle, Acts 22.10. compared with ver. 16.  
4. Suppose the Apostles had had no more opportunity of being baptised, than John Baptist had (which yet cannot reasonably be supposed, nor is it certain that John himself was not baptised, since he said to Christ, I have need to be baptised of thee, Mat. 3 14.) yet what is this to an ordinary case, or how would this excuse them of baptism in order to Church-fellowship, who want no such opportunity.    

Querist.  
3. (And last) That had the Church, or persons, to whom these 3000. are said to have been added, been estimated by their having been baptised, (which must be supposed, if those who are added to them, are said to have b●ene added upon account of their being baptised) their number must needs have far exceeded an hundred and twenty, considering the great numbers, and vast multitudes of persons that had been baptised by John, Matth. 3.5.6. compared with Mark 1.5. Luke 3.7.21. as also by Christ himself, and his Disciples, John 3.22.26. yea, had the Church been estimated, or constituted by baptism, the Evangelist Luke, intending (questionless Acts 4.4.) to report the increase of the Church, and progress of the Gospel, with as much advantage as truth would afford, had prevaricated with the cause which he intended to promote, in reporting their number to have been about 5000. only, when as upon the said supposition and tenor of the late premises, he might with as much truth have reported them about 40000. yea and many more.  

Respon.  
All that is argued by the Querist in this particular, is built upon a wrong ground, or rather upon a supposed ground, which is indeed supposed by him to be held by us, but is not; and that is, that the Disciples or Church, were in respect of their number, estimated by their being baptised, that is, only by their being baptised, for if he do not mean so, he cou d not suppose that Luke might have reported the number of Disciples to be forty thousand, instead of that he does report them to be, upon such an account. But the truth is, we do not estimate the Church or number of Disciples, only by their being baptised, but by their being baptised in conjunction with their professed believing in, and owning of Jesus Christ crucified, and risen again, as the Son of God, and Saviour of the world. And accordingly the 3000. that are said to be added to the Church, Acts 2. are described, not by their baptism only, but by their gladly receiving the Word, and their being baptised too, ver. 41. and what word was it that they did gladly receive and believe, but (together with others) that word of the Apostle, by which he declared Jesus whom they had crucified, to have been raised from the dead, and to have been made both Lord and Christ, ver. 24.32.33.  
Both these qualifications then being requisite to denominate persons of the number of the Church, Luke could not have duly estimated the number of Disciples, or of the Church only by that baptism which persons had received before Christ was crucified (though its true also on the other side, that neither could he truly estimate them to be of that number without any baptism at all) because the greatest part of those that were baptised by John, into the expectation of Christ to come, yet d●d not believe in him, or own him as the Christ of God when he was come, much less they, and many who had been baptised by the Disciples of Christ, did believe in him, his being crucified notwithstanding; 
* Luke had no reason to number them with the Church, though baptised, who had fallen from the Faith into which they were baptised, and consequently had denied their baptism itself.  so that all the account that Luke could truly give of the number of the Church, or of Disciples, was only of such baptised persons, who after the death and Resurrection of Christ, did believe in him, which it seems amounted to no more than about an hundred and twenty.  
And as for those who had been baptised by John into the expectation of Christ to come, and yet did not own him when he was come; or else if they did believe in him for a season, yet did afterward renounce him, either before, or upon his being crucified; these were so far from being reputed of the number of the Gospell-church, upon account of their baptism received formerly, either from john, or Christ, as that they were directed and exhorted by the Apostle, as well to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, as to repent for the remission of sin, before they could be admitted into the Church, or be counted of its number, their former baptism notwithstanding, Act. 2.38 41. For who can imagine, but that if not all, yet that many of the 3000. that were baptised upon the preaching of Peter and the rest, had been baptised before by john; or who can conceive, but that if not all, yet that many, at the least, of that great multitude unto whom the Apostle preached at that time when the 3000. were converted, had been baptised by john, those Scriptures considered, cited by the Querist, Mat. 3.5.6. Mark 1.5. Luk. 3.7.21. where it is said, that all the Land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, were ALL baptised. And again, that ALL the people were baptised; and yet the Apostles exhortation to these inhabitants of Jerusalem, that were now gathered together to the number of many thousands, was, that they would repent and be baptised EVERY ONE of them, and as many as did receive this word, were baptised accordingly, and so added to the church.  
Since then the owning of Christ crucified, together with a being baptised in his name, was requisite to render men of the number of Disciples, as a Church: Hence it came to pass, that Luke could not estimate their number to be more than 120. Acts 1.1.15. nor above about 5000. Acts 4.4. notwithstanding more had been baptised by john, unless more of them had adhered to Christ crucified, as these did; so then, though baptism be one of the requisites, not without which, yet it is not the only requisite, by which the number of the church is to be estimated. By this time therefore I hope it doth appear, that this Acts 2.41. doth both colour and cotton (to use the Querists own words) with the supposal or conclusion, viz. that churches, or at least the first Gospell-church, (a Sampler to the rest) was not constituted without baptism, notwithstanding all that by the Querist hath been offered to the contrary.  
And if the first church or churches might not be constituted without baptism, than neither may those that succeed them, because the same reasons that made baptism necessary hereunto with them, makes it necessary also unto us; for gospel-order, settled by apostolical authority and direction, as this was, hath not lost any of its native worth, efficacy, or obliging virtue, by disuse and discontinuance, upon occasion of the Papal defection, but aught to be the same to us now, who are studious of a thorough reformation, as it was unto them in the first beginning of such order, or rather according to David's resolution upon a like occasion (Psal. 119.126.127.128.) to be the more closely adhered to; and the vindication and observation of such Gospell-rules to be managed with so much the more zeal, after the example of Christ himself, who as well as the Psalmist, was even eaten up with the zeal of his father's house, John. 2.16.17. when he found corruption crept into it.     

iv Quaere.  
Whether did not the Church at Rome, in the Apostles days, and so also the Church in Galatia, hold Church-communion with some who were not baptised, considering 1. That the Apostle to the former writeth thus; Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? Rom. 6.3. and to the later (after the same manner) thus; For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, Gal. 3.27. 2. That this Particle as many as (used in both places) is in such constructions as these, always partitive, distinguishing or dividing the entire number of persons spoken of, some from others by the character or property specified, or at least supposeth a possibility of such a distinction.  

Respon.  
1. I cannot grant the Querist his assertion, viz. that this particle as many as, is in such constructions as these always partitive, though I grant that many times it is; for when the Apostle saith, 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own Masters worthy of all honour; doth he thereby suppose or imply, that there were some servants, who were not under the yoke, or that there were some servants, who were not to count their own Masters worthy of all honour? both which must be supposed notwithstanding, if this form or manner of speaking, as many as, be always to be understood partitively, or as dividing the entire number of persons spoken of, which yet to suppose, who sees not how absurd it would be?  
Object. If it be said, this exhortation, Let as many servants as, etc. doth intentionally respect so many believing servants as were under the yoke, and that therefore in respect of other servants, who were not believers, it is partitive.  
Answ. If so, than the answer is, that so do those expressions used Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. intentionally only respect those at Rome, and in Galatia, who did believe, and were baptised, and therefore is partitive, in respect of others the Inhabitants of those places, dividing those of these churches, from others dwelling in the same places, who were not of these churches; so that if that objected should be granted, yet we shall gain as much or more by it one way, than we shall lose by it in the other.  
2. The coherence consulted, will evince the expressions so many of us as, and as many as, to comprehend all those persons of whom those churches did consist: For consider unto whom does the Apostle speak, Rom. 6.3. does he not speak to the whole church, and every individual soul of them, in the 1.2. ver. when he says, What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbidden: 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, unless you will suppose that the Apostle did grant a liberty to some of the church to continue in sin, and to live therein; then those words ●n ver. 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised 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 dissuading, not only 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 wisdom of any ordinary man, much less of a great Apostle, to make choice of a reason or motive to enforce his exhortation or persuasion, which is of less extent in the tendency and concernment of it, then are the persons which he does exhort, or dehort, which yet is a piece of weakness, of which you must suppose this Apostle to be here guilty, unless you do conclude, that all those of the church at Rome were dissuaded from continuing any longer in sin, upon this ground, because that they had all been baptised into the death of Christ, viz. a conformity to his death, as well as a belief 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 jesus, 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 jesus; for, or because as many of you as have been baptised 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 Gospel, as indeed it does, than ye are all the children of God, because by being baptised 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  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 baptised into Christ, which yet we see they are, unless they had been all of them baptised into Christ ind●●●.  
Besides, doth it not appear in the return that is made to the first and third Queries, that in the Apostles days none were inchurched without baptism; and if so, than these places cannot import the contrary.    

V Query.  
Whether did not the Church at Corinth, in the Apostles days, entertain members, and hold communion with those who had not been baptised, considering that he demandeth thus of this Church, else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptised for the dead? 1 Cor. 15.29. Or doth not this imply, that there was a corrupt and superstitious practice on foot in this Church, to baptise one or other of the surviving kindred or friends, in the name of such persons respectively, who died unbaptised, and if so, is it not a plain case, that there were some of these members, who lived and died unbaptised?  

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 unbaptised, yet it is not necessary at all to suppose those dead friends of theirs to have been of the church whilst they were alive, but much more probable it would be, (if the practice itself 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 Gospel, yet died before they were either baptised, or admitted as Members of the Church?  
But 2. It is but a mere 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 practice, 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 custom, or would draw such a clean thing, out of that which was so unclean.  
2. Much less is it probable, that he should do so without taxing th●● by way of reproof for it; for might not they have been very apt to have concluded the Apostles approbation of their practice, should he have produced it as useful to convince them of the doctrine of the Resurrection, without declaring his dislike of it? 3. Paul's interrogatory indefinitely propounded to the whole church, supposes them all to have been baptised, 1 Cor. 1.13. were ye baptised in the name of Paul? and that saying of his does assert it, 1 Cor. 12.13. we are all baptised 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 else 2. That hereby is intended the baptism of afflictions, (elsewhere mentioned, Mat. 20.22. Luk. 12.50.) considering that the Apostle immediately subjoins the mention of his own and others hazards and sufferings, saying, And why stand we in jeopardy? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ jesus, 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 Gospel (which is a kind of death, for he here says of himself, that he died daily, meaning his sufferings) if ye do not believe the Resurrection? and why do we stand yet in further jeopardy? nay then rather let us eat and drink, for to morrow we shall die.  
These interpretations surely carry a far greater probability to answer the drift of the Apostle, then that given by the Quaerist: But surely there is little edification or satisfaction, when only one doubtful 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 itself is altogether improbable: But is not that cause barren of proofs, and destitute of friends, that must be beholding to such strangers to stand by it, and secure it?    

VI Query.  
Whether when Paul soon after his conversion, assayed to join to the Church and Disciples at Jerusalem, (Acts 9.26.) did this Church make any enquiry after his baptism, as whether he had been baptised or no, in order to his reception among them; or did they know he had been baptised? or did Barnabas in giving satisfaction to the Apostles and Church, concerning his meetness to be admitted into communion with them, so much as mention his being baptised, but only declared unto them, how he had seen 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 less conclude, that Paul was admitted to communion with the church, until the church had knowledge, either from himself, Barnabas, or some other, of his having obeyed the Gospel, in embracing 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 baptised to be one; and doubtless less satisfaction would not serve them concerning him, than 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 seen the Lord in the way, and had spoken to him, did he not declare what it was that the Lord spoke to him? if so, then how can it be thought, but that the relation of his being baptised must come in at the one end of his report, inasmuch as that direction which the Lord gave Saul, about his going into strait 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 baptising of him, unless 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 careless in the business. But surely the Querist does not think t●at Barnabas used no more words in his relation, then what are here recorded by Luke, since we have frequently, if not for the most part, but the brief heads of things recorded, that were done and spoken by Christ, the Apostles, and other Disciples, john 21.25. Acts 2.40.  
3. Might not the Quaerist with as much reason have quaeried, whether the church (upon Paul's assaying to join with them) did make any enquiry at all, whether he were converted to the faith or no, as whether he was baptised or no; for indeed here is no express mention made of the churches enquiring after the one, any more than 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 inquire 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 spoke any one word to them, when he assayed to join himself with them, only it's said, That when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join 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 less, then that he should declare to them, what the Lord had done for him by the Ministry of Annanias, and if so, his being baptised? especially considering, that where we find Paul upon another occasion, not greater than 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 confess 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 lawful for baptised, to join with unbaptized persons in Church-communion, though it should be granted that it cannot be proved that ever they did so in the Apostles days.  
For answer to this, I shall refer to what is giv● 〈◊〉 answer to the 1. Quaere, this only I shall 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 lawful, 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 satisfy me in this particular, what ever he may do 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 unlawful, becaause it hath neither Precept (I mean no particular or express Precept, wherein the Action or Practice itself, with all the Circumstances under which it becomes lawful is named) or Example to justify it?  

Respon.  
An action relating to the worship of God, is not to be concluded unlawful, though it have no particular nor express precept or example in so many words, upon which to bottom it, if there be any general 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 Querists instances. But if such an action be not only void of particular precept or example, yea and of general precept too, but is also contrary to, and a transgression of a general rule and precept, and a swerving from particular example stamped with Divine approbation; then I hope it is not lawful, but unlawful, which yet clearly is the case of Baptised persons holding communion with unbaptiztd, in as much as it crosses that holy order of the Gospel, commission of Christ, and constant practice of primitive believers, Recorded in Scripture for our learning, and which is ●o be observed and kept inviolably by all those servants of Christ, who are not willing to exchange Christ's own Order and Method, for that which is but of Man; and who are not willing to give way to Antichristian obtrusions, to justle out ways 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 sin against that Heavenly admonition delivered by special 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 Baptised believers withdraw Communion from unbaptized believers, as judging them unholy, common or unclean, as it must suppose, or else it's nothing to the purpose, than there is a great mistake in the Querist. For I for my part, do judge many persons who are not Baptised, Holy and clean, and their hearts purified to a good degree, and yet I cannot but judge withal, that the way of holding Church-Communion with these, without their being Baptised, 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 respect of justification, but of their way of holding Communion without Baptism; and whether this be as well approved by God, as their persons are accepted with him upon their believing; if not, we may love and honour their persons, and yet dislike 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 Churchway 
* Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifice, partakers of the Alter? etc. 1 Cor. 10.18.  without having Communion with their way itself, which I must witness against, as that which God hath not sanctified by any word of his, that I know of. And therefore our declining Communion upon these terms, is not a calling, or a making of them, but theirway-Common or unclean.  
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 sin, 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 doubtful disputation, be a sufficient bar to Church-Communion?  

Respon.  
1. There is little question to be made, but that persons who are in and of a Church duly constituted, may continue their Communion there, notwithstanding there may be some opinion or practise among them of a doubtful disputation; yea, though there be something a 'mong them which are certain to them to be of an evil import, provided they faithfully witness against such evils: Nay surely it is not only lawful, but it is the duty of men in such cases to continue their Communion; that they that are stronger, might help the weaker, and be a means of purging the Church from that which doth defile.  
But then 2. Though this be true, yet what is this to warrant a man's holding Communion with a company of believers, and acting with them as a Church, when he knows 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 form 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 Believers a Church, because they are a company of Believers, nor can they duly act as such, or be called or accounted such in a Gospel's 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 Baptism) and the superstructure after. Ye also as lively stones, are built (or be ye built) up a spiritual House, 1 Pet. 2.5. They were first lively stones, and then built up a spiritual house, they were not a spiritual house because living stones, until these living stones were built up: and can any man think that there was any one spiritual house in the New Testament, whose Foundation was laid without Baptism? If not, as it is most certain 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 Gospel's order, and to act with them as if they were, and yet to witness against such practice of theirs too, what is it else, then for a man to condemn himself in that which he alloweth, Rom. 14.22. yea and to make himself a transgressor in building what he destroys? Gal. 2.18. This error then of non-baptisme, being an error, not of Believers in a Church, duly so called, but an error against the way of their becoming a Church according to Gospel's form; it is not a man's reproving this practice in them will justify his holding communion with them as a Church, no more than a man's reproving a woman for living with himself as his wife, because not duly married to him, will privilege 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 Episcopal and Presbyterial in their judgements, if Believers though in no such Church-state and order as he now judgeth necessary, if his declaring his dislike 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, Upon this rock will I build my Church?  

Respon.  
I would also query (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 hear, or doth expect ever to hear such a senseless 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, unless they have been baptised after their believing, how or after what manner soever they have been haptised before?  

Respon.  
If Baptism have been administered according to Gospel-rule to men who by profession appeared or seemed true Believers when they were baptised, though at the time of their baptising they were not so indeed in the sight of God, it is not (so fare as I know) necessary to their being of a Church, to be baptised again 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 balance of the Sanctuary, but only with such which essentially differs from Scripture-Baptisme, both in respect of the Subject, and external form of Administration, (as Infant-Baptisme doth) in which respects it is of no more validity than no Baptism at all; than 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 aught appears to the contrary, the universal practice of the Apostles and Primitive Believers, and that in pursuance of the commission of Christ (and therefore aught to be the resolved practice of Believers now, from which no pretences should turn them aside) is not only whispered and gently breathed, but loudly declared by many Scriptures, lifting up their voice together in this testimony, as you may see in my answer to the first and third Queries.     

QUERIE XIII.  
Whether is an error or mistake about the adequate or appropriate subject of Baptism, of any worse consequence or greater danger, than an error 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 Soldiers in the name of the Parliament of England, who hath no Commission so to do, than there would be for him to mistake the name or person of a man, the knowledge of whom doth nothing at all concern him? If there be, than I shall not doubt to affirm, that there is more danger for a man to invocate the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in their name to say, I baptise thee such or such a one, when neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost have given him Commission so to do, (which yet is the case (indeed the crime) of mistaking the true or right subject of Baptism) then there is in mistaking the man that was Melchisedeches 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 Melchisedeches Father to be Noah, in case he were some other man, would be an error only of less import, as, viz, for a man to go about to make himself wise above that which is written, in a business that concerns 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 Baptism, as it is stated by the brethren of new Baptism, in opposition to the judgement and practice (almost) of the whole Christian world, justly be numbered amongst those questions, which the Apostle calls foolish, and unlearned, and adviseth both Timothy and Titus to avoid, as being questions which engender strife, and are unprofitable and vain? 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 Baptism, 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 numbered with those that are unlearned, unprofitable, and vain? 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 strive about the Law, as specially intended by him. And what questions or strive 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 vain talkers; and vain talkers, or vain talk, or such questions, as were unprofitable and vain, agree well enough to meet in the same persons.  
2. But that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptism, 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 mind of God thereabout, should deserve to be numbered with those foolish and unlearned questions which are unprofitable and vain, I cannot believe: Because the appropriate subject of Baptism is essential to the Ordinance itself; neither is that any more the Baptism of Christ, which is applied to any other subject than 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 withal: or then that would have been God's Circumcision, if any instead of his Males, should have circumcised his Females. And surely if the true being and administration of Baptism, and the fulfilling of the command of Christ thereabout, does depend upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject of Baptism; then doubtless, an earnest enquiry after, and serious debates about the appropriate subject of Baptism can be no foolish or unlearned question, neither unprofitable nor vain; unless we will suppose true Baptism itself, and the command of Christ thereabout, to be unprofitable and vain; which to question whether it were, would be indeed a question unprofitable and vain, whatever wisdom 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 numbered with transgressors: 1. It does not follow, that the question about the appropriate subject of Baptism is therefore unprofitable, unlearned, foolish and vain, because upon debates about it, strifes, contentions, evil surmisings, divisions, and revile, and the like, have occasionally taken place in the world; no more than it will follow, that because such things as these were occasioned by Christ Jesus himself 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 numbered with the aforesaid vain 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 vain: because the knowledge of the Ordinance itself, and of its nature, use, and tendency, depends upon the knowledge of the appropriate subject as one of the essentials of it: and I cannot judge the knowledge and understanding the counsel 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 do I understand how the knowledge that comes by the ventilation of it, might arrive at the understandings of men, in a more peaceable, and less troublesome way, then by plead, arguings, and debatings, unless every man would of himself fall in with the truth, wh●ch if they would, there would then be no need to contend earnestly 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 Baptism (especially if upon that discovery, they have in conscience to God, acted according to their light) are rather impoverished, then spiritually enriched by it; because I suppose that which makes the Querist thus to judge, is but his mistaking one thing for another, viz. their former tameness and silent submission to the judgement of their guides, for their sweetness, meekness, humility, love, patience, and soberness of mind, and likewise their present activity and zeal 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 rashness, pride, frowardness, conceitedness, and the like. For otherwise (except some (as in the best Churches of old) by whom offences will come) I trust, in their own cause, and in the tenor of their lives, he may discern the same humility, meekness, sweetness, love, patience, soberness of mind, mortification to the world, heavenliness of disposition, endeavours of doing good, which was found in them before, not to boast of what additions God hath thereupon made to their spiritual store; unless his judgement concerning these, should be prejudiced by some alteration in his affection to the persons themselves, and then it is an easy matter indeed, to be so taken up with that only which is troublesome, as to neglect and overlook 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 speaks of, to proceed only 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, own 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 intent 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 Baptism, 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 baptised by Paul and Barnabas, who converted them, before such time they departed and left them; unless 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 than the other? or why should he suppose that they had more opportunity to put them into Church-order, and to join 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 several other Queries, misrepresents 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 error 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, until 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 denied) 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 business may be brought into a narrower compass, than so many queries extend to as are employed hereabout. For let the Querist prove us from the Word of God (which is that which only ought to sway us in this matter) either, 1. That a company of Believers without Baptism, may become truly, and according to Gospel-order, a Church of Christ visibly constituted, or else 2. That a man who knows, or upon Scripture grounds does believe a company of men and women to be no Church, according to such order, though Believers, unless they were baptised into Jesus Christ, may notwithstanding this his knowledge or persuasion, hold communion with them as if they were such a Church, until 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 himself been satisfied touching the due constitution of the Church of England, of which he once professed himself a Member, I suppose he would not have deemed the errors in it to have been a just ground of his separation from it, since we read of very foul evils in some of the primitive Churches themselves, but do not find the sound party exhorted to separate from the corrupt, but to proceed against them in a Churchway for their cure, by admonition, conviction, and excommunication in case of obstinacy.   

XVIII. Querie answered.  
What is said to the next precedent Querie will be a full and pertinent answer to this, and therefore shall say no more to it.   

XIX. Querie answered.  
To this I say, that whatever else a company of true Believers have done, yet if they have not done that which is necessary upon Scripture-account to render themselves a true Church according to Gospel order, than it is not unreasonable for a Christian to deny them to be such a Church. But yet for all that, it does not follow that such a denial renders them but as a rabble rout of the world; because unbaptised Believers are a third thing, neither prpoerly of the rabble rout of the world, nor yet formerly of the Church, (as a man that having served an apprenticeship, and is not yet made free of the Company of which his Master is, neither servant, nor freeman in the interim) but have so far left the world, as that they want nothing but an orderly induction to be of the Church.  
Nor can it be concluded, that because such have diligently enquired after the mind of God, and have sought direction from him hereabout, that therefore the way they are in must needs be right, any more than that those that practise contrary to them in this particular, upon like diligent search and seeking of God, must needs upon that account not be in the wrong: for they cannot both be in the right, and yet both search and seek; for the rule remains the same, and will not bow at any man's entreaty, and that's it by which the one and the other must be tried.   

XX. Querie answered.  
To this I answer, 1. I have already said, and now say it again, that a man may not departed from, much less bid defiance to a Church, because that Church cannot say Amen to every notion or conceit of his; Nay I will say more, he may not, though that Church does not agree with every sober and savoury apprehension of his, supposing them still to be a Church, duly so called, from their due constitution:  
2. Though there is no example in Scripture of any man's being baptised after the profession of his faith, who had been baptised before in his infancy, because when the Scriptures were written, there was no such thing as the baptising of Infants practised, by which to give opportunity of such an example; yet if Infant-Baptisme cannot be proved to be that Baptism which Christ requires his Disciples to submit to, and consequently is none of his Baptism, but the Baptism of Man, than Infant-Baptisme and no Baptism are of one and the same consideration; and if so, then there is example and precept enough in Scripture for such Believers to be once baptised, who never have been baptised before; and therefore the case is not so plain, as the Querist supposes, that there is no precept or example which warranteth the practice of the Children of after-Baptisme, as he calls them.  
But the Querist hath given himself an Answer to this Querie, by the matter of his 7. and 8. Queries, to which I refer him for further resolution in this.   

XXI. Querie answered.  
Answer, 1. If by Christians, the Querist means no more than true Believers in Christ Jesus, than I know none that so magnify the Ceremony or external Rite of Baptism, as to judge none Christians without it; nay the truth is, it is because we judge the Querist and others true Believers, that we do persuade them to be baptised.  
But if by Christians he means such as according to the Word have put on Christ, than we must say, that those that by being baptised into Christ, have not put on Christ, are not yet such Christians as they ought to be. Gal. 3.27. And yet it does not follow, that they who so say, do stumble at the same stone of danger, and peril of soul, at which the Jews stumbled (if they were Jews) when they urged and practised circumcision as necessary for justification, Gal. 5.2. because they urged and practised that for necessary which was now abolished; we that which is commanded and remains in force, we urge Baptism to be necessary as a precept of Christ, and necessary as a means of salvation; they perhaps judged Circumcision as other works of the Law, meritorious, according to the Querists own declared judgement upon another occasion. And therefore I doubt the Querist does not deal so kindly with the Ordinance of Baptism, nor the Baptists themselves, as he should do, in that he puts the one but much what in the same capacity with Circumcision, as it was at that time when Paul said of it, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and in that he yokes the Baptists, who only urge Baptism as one of the precepts of Christ, and a means of salvation, as the Scriptures themselv●s do, with those that urged the abrogated Ceremony of Circum●●sion, as necessary unto Justification, as the Querist himself supposes. Truly I doubt the comparison in both respects, is odious with God, whatever it is with Men.   

XXII. Querie answered.  
That which will be very well worth our noting here in the first place, is, how the truth which we plead hath gained a fair and ample acknowledgement, even from the Querist himself in this Querie, though he oppose it in others. For he does not only demand whether there be any precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of any person after many year's profession of the Gospel; but also, whether there be any precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of any person, at any other time, SAVE AT, OR ABOUT their first entrance upon a profession of Christ? And not only so neither, but farther demands, Whether there be any competent ground, either in Reason or Religion, why either such a thing should have been practised by Christians in the Apostles days, or why it ought to be practised by any in these days? By which I am sure he says as much to the condemnation of Infant-Baptisme, as lightly can be spoken in so few words; and in substance as much as ever any man did say in opposition to that practice.  
For if there be neither precept nor example in Scripture, for the baptising of any person, at any other time SAVE at or about the time of their first entrance upon the profession of Christ; nor yet competent ground in Reason or Religion, why it should otherwise be practised: then certainly there is neither precept or example in Scripture for the baptising of Infants, nor yet any competent ground why such a thing should be practised; and the reason is, because Infants in their infancy can make no profession of Christ, nor do they in their infancy make any entrance upon a profession of Christ.  
Neither let any man think that I wrong the Querist in wresting his words contrary to his intention: For though I believe that which I infer from them, was no part of his intention, yet I do not wrest his words, but only infer from them that which must be true, if that which he lays down querie-wise for a truth, be a truth. And it is a thing not unusual for persons who plead the cause of any error in Religion, at one turn or other, to utter that which cuts the throat of their own tenant.  
But now to answer to that which the Querist intends indeed.  
1. If there be no example in Scripture of any man's being baptised, after many year's profession of the Gospel, it is because there is no example in Scripture of any such sinful negligence in Believers, as to continue many years in the profession of the Gospel without being baptised: if there were any linger and delaying in this case, they were awakened to their duty, as many Believers have now need to be: And now, why tarryest thou? Arise and be baptised, Acts 22.16. If then Believers in these days have been more remiss and negligent in yielding obedience to Christ in this command of his, than Believers were in the Apostles days, well may it serve to humble and to shame them, but by no means to encourage them to persevere in that neglect.  
2. Christ Jesus himself would be baptised, because he would fulfil that law of righteousness which enjoined Baptism, (Mat. 13.15.) though otherwise he had as little need of it as the greatest he, that thinks his long standing, and great attainments in Christianity should privilege him from it: and therefore methinks as such have any tenderness in them, lest they should be found neglecting any righteous precept of the Gospel, or any of that zeal that was in Christ to fulfil all righteousness, or any such love to Christ as to tread in his steps, should not have their hands out of this business upon any pretence whatsoever.  
3. Cornelius had been a long time a fearer of God, and it is probable had knowledge of John's baptising, or of Christ's baptising long before, in as much as he was famously known among the Jews; for he is said to have a good report among all the nation of the Jews, Acts 10.22. and therefore it is not unlike, but he might as well know what was done among the Jews, as they know what was done by him: besides, Peter speaking to him, and those with him, saith, That word (I say) you know which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the Baptism which John preached, etc. Acts 10.37. and yet notwithstanding his long profession of the fear of God, and notwithstanding he had not been baptised when he had knowledge of others being baptised; yet such were God's respects to this upright man, that rather than he should be any longer without a more particular knowledge of the Gospel, and without that Ordinance of the Gospel-Baptisme, he spares not to send an Angel to him, to direct him to Peter, Acts 10.4, 5, 48.  
4. He that is baptised, though not till long after the time in which he began to believe, does not by being baptised, then fall back from perfection to imperfection, from that which is more spiritual to that which is more carnal, as the Querist supposes; because he shall not thereby lose any thing he had before of that which is spiritual, but shall be sure to make a fair addition thereby unto his spiritual stock, if he do it hearty, as unto Christ, and afterwards make that spiritual improvement of it, of which it is very capable.  
5. The Ordinance of Baptism is as well matter of obligation, as signification; to oblige and hold a man fast to the service of Jesus Christ, as to instruct him in the things of the Gospel: upon which account Paul presses the improvement of it upon the believing Romans, (Rom. 6.3.4, 5.) so long after they had begun to believe, as that their faith by that time was grown famous throughout the whole world, chap. 1. ver. 8. And what, hath not even the strongest Christian himself, need of all the holy bonds and engagements of the Gospel, to engage and bind him faster and faster to Christ, and to press him more and more forward in his way?  
6. Baptism as well as the Table of the Lord, is rememorative, yea in some respect more; for the Supper properly is but rememorative of the death of Christ, whereas Baptism is rememorative, and declarative of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. And therefore the Querists reason being built upon this mistaken supposition, that Baptism is not rememorative as well as the Table of the Lord, is invalid, as to tender Baptism any more unnecessary to men of long profession, than the Supper itself is unnecessary for them.  
7. What ever else they have professed, I am sure they have not professed so much, and so far as they ought, who by being baptised into Christ, have not professed the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and their own Death, Burial, and Resurrection with him.  
8. There can no more reason be given (as I conceive) why Baptism should cease to be a duty to a believer because he hath omitted it in the properest season of it, viz. the time of his new birth, then why Circumcision should cease to be a duty to the Israelites, having omitted it many years after the eighth day of their Age, which was the proper time for it; and yet we see such an Omission in them, did not cause Circumcision to cease to be a duty to them, though perhaps the ground of their Omission, was much more approvable, or at least excusable before God, than the ground of that Omission of Baptism, of which we speak, can well be conceived to be, Josh. 5.7.  
9 An Omission or neglect of Baptism by the Believers, let it be under what pretence soever it will, is guilty of an unkindness to God, and to Jesus Christ, in that they do not Justify God in the face of the World, in that as well as in any other way and in that they do not put on the Lord Jesus in Baptism, as the first and best approved Believers did, Luke 7.29. Gal. 3.27.  
10. Such Believers as neglect Baptism, upon a supposal they have no need of it, because of their long-standing in Christianity, are unmerciful to their own souls, in cutting themselves short of such a means or spiritual accommodation as Baptism is, and do offer injury both to that Wisdom and Goodness of God, which consulted their good in that Ordinance: They reject the Counsel of God against themselves in not being Baptised, Luke 7.30.   

XXIII. Querie Answered.  
1. If the Law of Edification, aught to overrule all Laws and Precepts concerning spiritual Church-administrations, as the Law of Salus popule ought in things civil, as the Querist supposes, and takes for granted from Cor. 14.26. Then the Administration of Baptism ought rather to be appropriated to persons professing the Faith, then unto Infants, and not the contrary as the Querist would have it: and the reason hereof is, because Baptism is more edifying both to the Baptised themselves, and also to others, when administered to persons professing the Faith, then when to Infants. And this must needs be so, because Infants by reason of their want of understanding and Faith, are not capable of receiving that Spiritual edification by Baptism; not of improving it unto their Spiritual advantage, as those are that have the Use and Exercise of understanding and Faith too. Nor is the administration of Baptism, like to be so taking with others that are but Spectators, either as to the informing of their judgements, or moving of their affections, when applied to a Creature (as an Infant is,) expressing no knowledge of God, or Jesus Christ, nor Love or Obedience to him, or any desire to his ways, as the same would be, when administered to a Believer, who by his voluntary submission to that Ordinance, Preaches to men his belief in Jesus Christ, as Dead, Buried, and Risen again; And his exepectation of Remission of sins through Faith in his Name, and their own desires, and resolutions, of giving up themselves wholly unto Jesus Christ; unless you will suppose, there is no difference between zeal and no zeal in this behalf, which cannot be supposed without contradicting the Spirit of those and the like Scriptures, Mat. 21.32. with Luke 7.29, 30. 2 Cor. 9.2.  
2. I cannot be of the Querists mind (I confess) that Circumcision and Baptism are the same in Spirit and Substance, though differing in the Letter; Because circumcision was no sign or resemblance of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and of men's Death, Burial, and Resurrection with him, which yet the Scripture makes to be the spirit of Baptism, Rom. 6.3.4, 5. Col. 2.12. And therefore this reason, is no reason, either why Baptism should rather appropriately belong to Infants, rather than any others, or indeed that it should belong to them or all, though Circumcision did.  
3. Whereas the Querist directs us, diligently to compare, Rom. 4.11. with Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. etc. out of which to find that Baptism and Circumcision are one in strength and substance of Spirit; I confess I have diligently considered these Texts, and till I did diligently consider them, was of the Querists mind herein, but by a diligent considering of them, am now of another mind.  
I suppose the Querist would have us to conceive from these Scriptures, that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness which comes by Faith, and Baptism a Seal of the Righteousness which comes by Repentance, and therefore the same Spiritually. But what relation soever Baptism hath to Repentance (as indeed I no where find it called a Seal of the righteousness of Repentance) yet confident I am, that when the Apostle calls Circumcision, A Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith which Abraham had before he was circumcised, he does not describe the common nature of Circumcision, as he had done in those words immediately before, where he calls it a Sign, which agrees with Gods own Denomination of it when he first instituted it, and therefore most likely adequately to answer the common end and use of it; But he describes Circumcision in these words, A Seal of the Righteousness, etc. as that which it was peculiarly to Abraham. For 1. It is not called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith indefinitely, but only A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which HE HAD. And 2. A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised. And then 3. The end wherefore Circumcision became such a Seal of the Righteousness of Abraham's Faith, and it was this, THAT he might be the Father of all them that believe.  
And were not these things, in respect whereof Circumcision was a Seal, peculiar unto Abraham only? Or did God ever give Circumcision (as is said, he gave to Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision, Acts 7.8.) to any other as the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had before he was Circumcised, or to ratify and establish him the Father of all that should afterward believe? If not, why should we think Circumcision was in common a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to other men, as long as the reasons wherefore it is so called, are peculiar unto Abraham alone?  
The Apostles scope here, was, (as will appear in the Context) to prove that Circumcision did contribute nothing in the business of justification: and this he proves, in that Abraham was justified before Circumcised; and not only so, but his very receiving of Circumcision from God upon these terms he did receive it, was an evidence or demonstration, that Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he received it, and that he did receive it for such an end, as that he might stand declared under this Seal of God, as a Man of such high acceptation with God, as to be thereupon called and accounted the Father, the famous example and pattern of all those that should believe. And if Abraham did receive Circumcision, as a Testimonial of that love which God did bear to him before, (as Nehemiah says, that God found his heart faithful before him, and entered into Covenant with him thereupon, Neh. 9.8.) than it could not be the procuring cause of Abraham's acceptation with God. This construction of the word then, so directly answering and accommodating the drift and Scope of the Apostle, I see no reason to embrace any other that is contrary to it.  
For to understand the Apostle as speaking of Circumcision in the common nature of it, as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, seems to me rather to disaccomodate the Apostle in his intendment then otherwise; Since those with whom Paul here disputes, might rather thereby be confirmed in their Opinion of the necessity of Circumcision unto Justification, since things (writings for example) are not authentic till they are Sealed, and therefore should Paul have told them, that Circumcision had been the Seal of Justification, might not they have inferred, that therefore justification could not be complete without it?  
3. Should we grant that which the Querist would have, viz. That Circumcision and Baptism were the same in Spirit and Substance, (which yet we may not grant yet that would by no means follow thereupon, which the Querist supposeth, viz. That Baptism is, and Circumcision was, most edifying when administered to Infants; Or else that Circumcision was ordered by God, unto the Spiritual loss and detriment of those to whom it was enjoined. For this Assertion cannot be true, unless you will suppose that which is manifestly untrue, viz. That there is no mean between most edifying, and none at all; or which is more, that there is no mean between MOST edifying, and Spiritual loss and detriment. For Circumcision might have been edifying as administered to Children) to the first or second degree of Edification, and yet neither be most Edifying, nor yet matter of Spiritual detriment; unless the comparatives of Less and More, were not in use in those days. I will willingly grant, that the whole ministration of Moses, was edifying to a degree, and therefore Circumcision also, though administered to Infants, in some respect or other; but I shall withal deny, that it or Circumcision as administered to Infants, was Most edifying; for than it should have remained still as the Apostle saith, Heb. 8.7. If that first Covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.  
It was then because of that little, low, and mean degree of Spiritual benefit or edification that was to be had by Circumcision as administered to Infants, or by other Rites or Ordinances of the Law, that the same were abrogated and made void, as is most evident also by that other saying of the Apostle, Heb. 7.18.19. For there is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness of it: for the Law made nothing perfect. If so, is it not most unreasonable to say, that the Law, or any part of it, and particularly Circumcision as administered to Infants, was most edifying? Or if it were most edifying according to the 〈◊〉 of God's Dispensation for the time then being, is there any show or appearance of reason in it, that an administration to Infants must be most edifying now under the Gospel, because such a thing was the most edifying way which God was pleased to vouchsafe the Church in her nonage under the Law? when as it is plain that as edifying as it was, it was disannulled for the unprofitableness of it.  
4. What ever the confidence of the Querist is to the contrary, yet there is not only a colour of reason, but the substance or reason also why Baptism should not be so edifying as to its end, ●hen administered to Infants, as Circumcisian was and might be, as to its end, when it was administered to Infants; because Circumcision was no such transient act as Baptism is, but such as remained a permanent sign in the flesh as a visible matter of signification and instruction to the party circumcised all his days, (Gen. 17.13.) which is a thing, that no man can affirm of Infant's Baptism.   

XXIV. Querie Answered.  
That the Baptising of Infants in the Apostles days, is not sufficiently, or at all signified by those Scriptures which mention the Baptising of households, Acts 16.15.33. 1 Cor. 1.16. will sufficiently appear. 1. Because the households whose being Baptised, is recorded, being only but three, it may with as good probability be affirmed, that there were no little Children in them, as that there were, and in that respect we are upon equal ground with our friends, in denying, what they take liberty only to suppose. 2. If there were Infants in those households, yet the word House, or Household, in Scripture frequently imports, not all and every individual Soul in the house, but either the major part, or so many of the house, which according to common reason, are to be supposed capable of those affirmations that are made concerning them. 1 Sam. 1.21, 22. Gen. 50.4. & 35.2. 2 Sam. 3.1. Jer. 35.3.18. Mat. 10.13. & 12.35. John 4.53. Acts 18.8. & 10.2 Josh. 24.15. 2 Tim. 4.19. Rom. 16.10, 11. And accordingly must those Scriptures be understood where households are said to be Baptised. 3. In that it is said concerning one of the three households whose Baptism is recorded, That the Word of the Lord was spoken to them, and that they believed, Acts 16.34. and of another, that they addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints, 1 Cor. 16.15. with Chap. 1. v. 16. It is evident, that either there were no Infants in those households, or else that when they speak of households, they mean only such of them, as had attained the age of so much understanding, as to do, hear, and believe such things, as were incompetible to the capacity of Infants or little Children.  
To the reasons moving the Querist to think Infants were Baptised, when these households were Baptised, I answer,  
1. That God hath not left the Precept, and perpetual example of Circumcising Infants as a pit uncovered, (for Believers to fall into by Baptising their Children) by giving no hint of the alteration of his mind in that behalf: For in that he hath in the New Testament, abolished the use and practice of Circumcising Infants, its clear he hath abolished the Law by which Circumcision of Infants was enjoined. But he hath done the former, Acts 21.21. 1 Cor. 7.19. Gal. 5.2. Therefore the latter. And therefore considering that the Law of Circumcision, as all other Mosaical Rites, being disannulled, I cannot but wonder, that any man should build any thing upon it for the Baptising of Infants: Is not a repealed Law, and no Law, of the same consideration, as to its being any ground of practice?  
But may we not much rather conceive, that since God did make a Law against man's opening, or digging a pit in his field, and not covering it, to prevent the miscarriage of Man or Beast, in falling into it, Exod. 21.33. that then surely, he himself would never have left the Precept, and perpetual example of Baptising Believers, as a Pit uncovered for Christians to fall into, by neglecting to Baptise their Children till they repent and believe, without giving the least notice of his mind and will to have any other than such Believers to be Baptised, if yet it had been his mind that Children should have been baptised?  
2. That which the Querist offers to render children to be Believers in Scripture-sence, is insufficient as to the entitling of them to Baptism, or to cause us rationally to conceive them included in their number, who in the households aforesaid, are said to have believed. For 1. If it should be granted that children may be called Believers, not because they do believe indeed, but because they are in like state and condition with Believers, in respect of the love and favour of God, and their Title to the Kingdom of Heaven, which yet is all the Querist argues from Mat. 18.6. Yet what is this to the proving of them actual Believers, or such as embraced the Gospel, or were made to believe by teaching? which yet were that kind of Believers only, unto whom Baptism was, or was to be administered, for so much as appears throughout the whole New Testament. But 2. The truth is, the little ones which are said to believe in Christ, Mat. 18.6. cannot with any congruity of reason be supposed to be any such little ones, as Infants are: Because they are described by an Act which presupposeth, not only the Faculty, but the Use, Act and Exercise of the understanding; for so the Act of believing in Christ does, by which they are described, which yet as all men know, is incompetible to Infants. And therefore we must suppose, either 1. That the Child which Jesus called to him, Ver. 2. was of so much understanding as rendered him capable of believing, (and it was such a Child as came upon the call of Jesus:) or else 2. That the little ones, ver. 6. which are said to believe, are not the same with that little Child mentioned, ver. 2. And there are these two reasons why they should not be thought the same. 1. Because ver. 2. speaks of one Child only in the singular number, but ver. 6. speaks of little ones in the plural number, and that too, not under the appellation of Child or Children as before, but of little ones. 2. If we compare this passage with the other Evangelists, as Mark. 9.42. Luke 17.2. It will be evident (as it is rendered by them) that little ones, were not little Babes, or little Children properly so called, but the Disciples of Christ, whom he frequently calls little ones, and sometimes little Children, John 13.33.  
2. But that which is further added by the Querist, why Infants can upon no tolerable account be excluded, when it is said of whole Households or Families, that they were dipped, though it should be supposed, they were in no sense capable of believing, is I confess to me seasonable, and it is, because they were as capable, and in some respects more capable of being dipped, than Men: as if their being capable de facto to be dipped, must needs argue them capable de jure of the Ordinance of Baptism as well as Men: Such a capacity, not only Infants, but other Creatures also have as well as Men: and if this had been all the capacity requisite, no doubt but Children had been as capable as any, yea and other Creatures too.  
3. Is that a good reason why we should think Children were Baptised with the households before mentioned, because we ought not to contend with God, or reject any part of his Counsel or Will because only somewhat sparingly, and with some scantiness of evidence discovered in his word? Nay rather, since the Will of God is herein manifest, that persons professing the Faith, were the subject of his Baptism, all the while the Scriptures, and the History of things then, were in composing, let no man contend with God, because he hath not framed the Scripture to his mind or opinion, nor go about to force the Scripture to speak that they have no mind to speak, or suppose when God hath delivered his Mind plainly; That yet he hath thoughts and counsels of another nature, more comporting with his mind, (as Baalam sometime thought in another case.)  
4. The Querist supposes several other Tenants to be embraced, upon weaker and less lightsome grounds, than such as are given for Infant-Baptisme: but that he should mention the admission of women to the Lords Table for one of these tenants, is I confess matter of wonder to me; for there is both precept and example, upon which this tenant is grounded, but neither the one, nor the other, for the baptising of Infants; and therefore how the ground for this should be more lightsome, then for the other, is that which passes my reason to comprehend.  
For matter of precept, for admitting women to the Table of the Lord, we have it in these words, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup, 1 Cor. 11.28. For I doubt not but the Querist well knows, that Man in this place is the common gender, & signifi●s the kind and not the sex, and therefore women to be every whit as much concerned therein, as men.  
For example, we have it Acts 2.42. compared with Acts 1.14. and 2.16.18. For in the former place we find the three thousand that were added, together with those to whom they were added, continued in fellowship and breaking of bread. In the other places, we find that among those Disciples, to whom the three thousand were added, there were Women, and Handmaids of the Lord, and therefore it is every whit as plain from this place, that women did break bread, as that men did. And when it's said Acts 20.7. That the Disciples came together to break Bread upon the first day of the week, why should it be understood of men any more than women? in as much as women are Disciples as well as men, unless haply it be said, there is particular mention made of Paul and Eutychus.  
And now let the Querist produce us more lightsome grounds, than precept and example for his sprinkling of Infants, or else forbear this comparison.   

XXV. Querie answered.  
If a baptismal sprinkling of an Infant (as the Querist's expression is, which is as much as to say, a sprinkling by dipping) b● no more the Ordinance of Baptism, than another common action is, (as I verily presume it is not, till it be proved to be of a d●vine appointment) than the baptismal sprinkling the Querist speaks of, varies the case of baptising one after this sprinkling, no more than the baptising of one after the doing of any Ordinary and common action: and therefore it might with as bapti-reason in my opinion, have been demanded, whether the much sing of one who hath been so and so nursed, so and so attended, so and so attired in his infancy, be any where countenanced in Scripture, by particularity or expressness of precept or example, as whether the submitting to a baptismal dipping, after a baptismal sprinkling, be so countenanced. But as touching particularity of precept or example in such cases, I have answered more largely to query 1.7.8.22.  
And whereas the Querist further demands, Whether they do not presume as much, or rather more upon their own judgements and understandings, in making Infant-Baptisme a mere nullity, the Scripture giving no such sentence against it, as they do who make it an Ordinance of God, or a mere and necessary administration of an Ordinance? I answer, No, they do not: Because they do not proceed upon their own judgement only, but upon Scripture-ground, who reject every administration which is obtruded as necessary, which hath no footing in the Word of God: For every Plant which the heavenly Father hath not planted, is to be plucked up, Mat. 15.13. though every such Plant which men have, or shall plant, upon their own judgements only, as Infant-Baptisme, cross in Baptism, Surplice upon the Priests back, and many others, be not particularly mentioned in Scripture; yet it is sufficient that we have that general warrant to reject a●l that is not of Gods planting. But now, they that shall practice Infant-sprinkling as an Ordinance, or as a necessary Administration of an Ordinance of God, without warrant from God, they plant and not God, which plant is to be rooted up, and rejected by those that will side with God, against the corruptions and superstitions of men. And therefore whereas the Querist makes that a reason of the practice of Infant-Baptisme, viz. because, as he says, Infants (at least of Believers) are not where excluded by God from part and fellowship in that administration, it is nothing but what hath been, and with as good a show of reason may be pleaded by the Papists, for many of their superstitious customs and traditions; for neither are they by name excluded the parts of God's worship. But we say, that Infant-Baptisme and what ever else is obtruded as necessary in the Worship and Ordinances of God, which he hath not made so by some word of his or other, is by virtue of that general rule which warrants the plucking up every Plant that is not planted by God, to be rejected by men, as will-worship, and the serving of God, according to the precepts of men. Col. 2.18.23. Isa. 29.13.   

XXVI. Querie answered.  
1. I might here observe the discordancy and incongruity of this Q●erie, with several that have gone before it: For whereas this renders the neglect of Baptism so dangerous, as that the heavy hand of God may well be feared as the punishment of such a sin, yet several other precedent queries have rendered it so venial a sin, as that it would be unreasonable for the sake thereof, to bar any from Church-communion.  
2. But to answer directly; I suppose it will not be denied by the Baptists queried, but that Baptism is as necessary, and of as high esteem with God under the Gospel, as Circumcision was under the Law; and that they who neglect it whose duty it is to submit to it (the Querist I mean, and other Believerrs) have cause to fear the displeasure of God, as well as those who neglected Circumcision under the Law. But where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and where no transgression, no fear of wrath: if then there is no command from God to baptise Infants, as there was to circumcise them, (or if there be, the Pedobaptists were never yet so kind as to show it us) then there is no cause to fear the like danger for the forbearing of the one, as there was for neglecting of the other.  
3. But though there be no cause to fear the displeasure of God for forbearing to baptise Infants, yet if there be the same cause for us to fear the displeasure of God for doing that which he hath not commanded, as there was for his people under the Law in like case, than there is just cause for those to fear the displeasure of God in one kind or other, who though they do not offer strange fire which God commanded not, as did N●dab and Abihu, whom the Lord slew, L●vit. 10.1, 2. not transgress the Order of God as Vzza did, who died before God, 1 Chron. 13.10. with chap. 15.13. yet do as truly and really do that as a service to him in sprinkling their children which he hath not commanded, as they did the other.   

XXVII. Querie answered.  
Whether the Israelites were blameless under the omission of Circumcision for forty years together, upon account of that bodily inconvenience or danger the Querist speaks of, I know not, I leave it to him to determine: But that a being dipped over head and ears in water, in obedience to a command of Jesus Christ, should be a tempting of the providence of God, as to the endangering of either life or health, I cannot believe; because more than frequent, even constant experience, teacheth the contrary. Nor do I believe there is the like danger or difficulty attends this dipping, as did the circumcising of those Israelites, Josh. 5. after they had omitted it forty years: and yet the danger and difficulty notwithstanding, God would have it done. What ever the danger might be for a man to be dipped upon his own account, I shall not speak; but I am very confident, God hath not made a snare of Baptism; and unless we will conceive, that God takes less care to preserve his people now in the times of the Gospel, from such inconveniences as these feared, in the way of serving and obeying him, than he did to preserve his people from those hazards they exposed themselves to in obeying him under the Law, Exod. 34.24. there will be no cause for any man to fear the miscarriage of his life or health in the hand of Jesus Christ, and in the way of obeying him; he that rebuked the Winds and the Seas for his servants sakes, can rebuke the feared cold: and though ease slayeth the foolish, yet whoso harkeneth unto me (saith God, Prov. 1.32, 33.) shall dwell safely, and shall be free from the fear of evil. And how can he trust God with the keeping of his soul in well doing, 1 Pet. 4.19. that cannot trust him with the keeping of his body in well doing? Little does he think who ever is turned aside by this Lion in the way, what peace and satisfaction a man's experience of the uprightness and cordialness of his heart to God will produce him, when notwithstanding the danger which fl●sh and blood will suggest in the case, he can in love and obedience to his Lord and Master Jesus Christ, throw health, and life, and all into the hands of God.   

XXVIII. Querie answered.  
1. If the Querist will suppose that those Scriptures which require faith, or the profession of faith in those that are to be admitted to Baptism, are to be understood only of men and women who are capable of making such a profession, and that they are no more exclusive of Infants, than the Apostles Injunction, 2 Thes. 3.10. If any will not work, let him not eat, is exclusive of Infants in the point of eating, wherein he intends men only and not children; then I desire him to show us what Scriptures those are, that do speak of the baptising of infants and not of men and women professing the faith if those do not: for if such Scriptures as require faith in those that will be baptised, do no more intent children, than the foresaid Injunction of the Apostle doth, than there must be some other Scriptures that do intent Infants, when they speak of baptising, or else there are no Scriptures at all that do speak of children's Baptism: if there be any other, why are they not produced? if there be not, why is the world troubled with these disputes as if there were?  
2. Why does not, or may not the Querist as well suppose, that those words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man therefore examine himself, and so let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup, are no more exclusive of Children than those are, He that will not work, let him net eat; or then those are, which require a profession of faith before Baptism? For may not any man that will give himself liberty and scope to puzzle men's understandings without plain Scriptures, as well deny that children are debarred Communion at the Table of the Lord, by this Text which requires a man to examine himself in order to his approach thereto, as to deny that children are debarred Baptism by those Scriptures that require faith in men and women to render them capable of Baptism? if there be any difference, let us understand it; or if children be not here excluded the Supper, then show us by what other Scripture they are: or if the Querist will grant that children are hereby excluded Communion in the Supper, than we desire him, if he can, to show reason why such a requiring of faith in persons to be baptised, does not as well exclude children from Baptism, as from the Supper, there being no other Scriptures that do any more warrant the baptising of children, than the admission of them to the Supper of the Lord.   

XXIX. Querie answered.  
That dipping is of the essence and necessity of Baptism, I conceive there is good reason to believe; But that they are selfe-Baptisers, who by going into the water, dispose their bodies for a burial under the water, by the hands of the Baptiser, I do no more believe, than I believe they are selfe-Murderers, or selfe-Slayers, who lay their bodies down, and their necks upon the block when they are to be executed.  
Nor have I seen or known any to convey all but the head under water in order to their being baptised, or dipped, nor do I judge it convenient so to do, unless a shallower water cannot conveniently be come at; though I believe withal, that so the body of him who is baptised, be buried under water by him that does baptise, it does not at all  the case as to the thing of Baptism, whether a man go less or more into the water; the Scripture placing the thing, not in a man's going to the knees, or neck, in water, but in his being baptised, or buried in water.   

XXX. Querie answered.  
I demand of the Querist, whether God in the institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. did any more prescribe or determine all circumstances essential to Circumcision, than God, than Christ have determined all circumstances requisite to Baptism in the Commission given by them to baptise? John 1.33. Mat. 28 19 Did God command Circumcision? So God, so Christ have commanded Baptism. Did God appoint what persons should be circumcised, viz. every male child among the Jews? so hath Christ who shall be baptised, viz. such of the nations as shall be taught or made Disciples. Did God appoint the eighth day for Circumcision? Christ hath appointed the time of Baptism, viz. though not such or such a day, yet that it should follow men's being discipled or taught, without any long intermission, as the very words of the Commission do import, and Scripture examples conform to this Commission, do show. Did God direct what part of the body should be circumcised, viz. the flesh of the foreskin? So Christ he hath appointed the subject matter to be Baptised, under this word or expression THEM, Baptising them. i e. Such persons of the Nations as shall be taught; not this or that part of them, but THEM, even them themselves; by which personal expression when applied to washing or dipping, in Scripture, is wont to be signified, not the washing of this or that part, as Hands, Face, Feet, or the like, which are wont to be particularly mentioned, when no more is intended, but a total washing or dipping, as very many learned Men, though friends to Infant-Baptism, do also render the word Baptise to signify.  
Did God declare for what end circumcision should serve, viz. For a token between him and his people? So Christ in Commissionating his Disciples to Baptise, in, or (as it is rendered from the Greek) into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, declared that Baptism should be a solemn putting, or planting of Men, into the Father, Son, and Spirit, or into a professed expectation of Salvation from, and of the service of, and subjection to, the Father, Son, and Spirit. Nay, I may say, the Commission for Baptising, is more particular and express then that for circumcising: for here it is directed by Christ, by whom, or by what hands Baptism shall be administered, viz. Disciples; but it is not prescribed by what hands the Males should be Circumcised, nor yet with what instrument, as viz. whether with a Knife, or sharp Stone, or the like.  
And therefore, there being in the Commission of Christ to Baptise, as much (yea in some respects more) particularity of subject, and manner of Administration, as was in God's Command to Circumcise, (and the same might be said if compared with the Passover or Supper of the Lord,) the Querist doubtless had no reason rashly to charge those, with making themselves wise above that which is written, or with obtruding upon the consciences of men, an institution of their own, in the name of the Ordinance and Institution of God. Who undertake to determine particularity of subjects or manner of Administration in Baptism, which yet he does.  
But I would demand of the Querist, whether he doth not determine particularity of subject, and manner of Administration in Baptism, when he Sprinkles such and such Infants in that form and manner which he uses therein? and whether he do this of his own head, or by virtue of any Institution or command of christ? If he will say, he does it by virtue of an Institution or Command from Christ, then at least in his opinion, there must be a commission from Christ found in Scripture, which prescribeth such circumstances as he Judges essential to that administration, as well as there is for the essentials of Circumcision, Passover, and Supper of the Lord; if so, why does he suppose there is no such thing to be found in Scripture? Or if he will say there is no such Commission in Scripture, as does determine particularity of subject, and manner of Administration in Baptism, as he must hold, or else he is to blame for changing those who ever they be, with making themselves wise above that which is written, etc. That do prescribe and determine, particularity of subject, and manner of Administration in Baptism; But as I say, if he will say there is no such Institution, or Commission, (which is equivalently the same) then does not he make himself wise above that which is written, and obtrude upon the consciences of these that join with him, an institution of his own, in the Name of an Ordinance and Institution of God, when he undertakes to determine Infants particularly to be the subject of Baptism, and Sprinkling in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to be the manner of Administration, and accordingly practise the same?   

XXXI. Querie Answered.  
1. Though it should be granted, That many, if not the generality of those that have entered into the way of new Baptism (as the Querist miscalls it, it being indeed the old way of Baptising) Have received their precious Faith, and other Graces, under the dispensation of their Infant-Baptisme, yet this would be no more a reason obliging their continuance in their old wont form, (supposing there is yet a more excellent way) than it was or would have been to those who were wrought upon in a saving way, under the Popish, and after that the prelatical form, to have continued still their abode in their Tents.  
2. It is like no good use would be made of it by some, should I become so much a fool, as to glory of what I assuredly know, touching the Spiritual increase which God hath vouchsafed many of his servants under this Dispensation. But this I may say, that more than one of a thousand (though I believe the Querist does not know one of a thousand of them, and therefore can be no competent Judge of the growth of their thousands; but that more than one of a thousand) engaged in this new, Alias old way of which the Querist speaks, have since their entrance into it, added much more than the breadth of the least hair of their head unto their former growth or stature in Christ, is a truth, of which the Querist would make no doubt at all, as now he does, had he but taken their former, and present Spiritual Dimensions, with such a measuring Reed as that wherewith John did measure the Temple of God, and them that worship therein, Rom. 11.1. But however, it is good for every Man to think soberly (as the Apostle speaks in an other case) both in commending, and discommending, and not to stretch himself beyond his own line in measuring.  
3. To the Querists further demand, I answer; that possibly some may be worse since they came under this Dispensation then before, though I must say I know not one such, except such who have quite forsaken the way, and it is no marvel if they are grown worse: nay this rather turns to a Testimony for that way, then against it, in that when Men grow bad, the yoke of Christ becomes too straight for them any longer to wear, and the company too holy for them to endure. But as for the decays of s●me in the way, if it strengthen not its claim as to be from God, so neither does it at all weaken it any more, than those unruly and disorderly walkings of some in the Apostolical Churches, did argue the way of those Church's not to be of God. Alas if such pleas as these were valid, where are there Men of that order and form, that could avouch their way to be of God? But if the old way of Independency be indeed free from all spots of this kind, they shall by my consent, throw the first stone at the Men of this new way. Well may this way of managing the controversy between us, occasion indeed those evil surmisings, alienation of affection, and vilifyings, of which the Querist speaks. Q 14. but will contribute little towards the finding out the tru●h, but rather the contrary; upon which account I shall forbear what otherwise might have been retorted.   

XXXII. Querie answered.  
What the Learning, Worth, and Humility was, of Johannes Oec●lampadius, Johannes Denkius, and Johannes Gaster, in Luther's time, I know not, who as the Querist informs us, repent of their weakness, as having been surprised with a religious conceit of the necessity of new, alias old Baptism: But this I know, that it is a very rare thing for men of such great learning, as these are represented to have been, merely by a surprisal with a Religious conceit, so fare to deny themselves of the accommodations of their former way, wherein they inherited the respects of Men, and the warm influences of the World, as to expose themselves to the hatred, opposition, and persecution of the times, except their convictions from the Word of God, have been very potent and operative upon the Conscience. And whether these men did return back to their former form, accompanied with the same humility and worth, with which before they left it, is more than I know, or then the Querist does inform us in, or then I am bound to beleev●, since learned men (as experience of all Ages shows,) have been no more temptation-proofe, and free from backsliding to embrace this present World, than other Men.  
But as for those of late among ourselves of like Character, except it be such as have repent of their worth and humility, as well as of their new Baptism; as the Querist does not name any, so I have not known or heard of any, except one or two Ministers, who have repent for a good living sake, (as possibly those other learned men might do) and yet I am given to understand, that one of those hath again repent of that his Repentance.   

XXXIII. Querie answered.  
Here the Querist supposes, that Baptism is no more the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, than Circumcision was the Circumcision of Repentance for Remission of sins, or at least, that the one may be truly so called as well as the other; and that therefore, though Infants cannot repent, that yet they are no less capable of Baptism, than they were of Circumcision.  
But I deny that which the Querist supposeth, viz. that Circumcision might as well and truly be called the Circumcision of Repentance, as Baptism, the Baptism of Repentance.  
1. Because his reason upon which he builds his Supposition is unsound, being this, viz. because according to the Apostles definition of Circumcision, Rom. 4.11. it is for substance and import of matter, the same with Baptism. But that neither Circumcision and Baptism, are for import of matter the same, nor yet that Rom 4.11. does import any such thing, is that the demonstration whereof I have briefly asseyed in answering the 23. Querie, where the same thing was alleged by the Querist, to which I refer the Reader.  
2. If well observed, it will appear, that the reason why Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of sins, is such as would by no means suit with such a denomination of Circumcision, and consequently that Children are not as capable of Baptism, as they were of Circumcision. For the reason why John's Baptism was called the Baptism of Repentance for Remission of sins as in the place quoted by the Querist Mark. 1.4. was, because Repentance was the qualifying term upon which John prached Baptism as meet to be received, and upon which those received it accordingly that were Baptised by him. As the Covenant given Abraham is called the Covenant of Circumcision, Acts 7.8. b●cause probably Circumcision was the term by and according to which the seed of Abraham were to be adjudged in the Covenant, and rightful partakers of the benefits and privileges of it, and therefore called the token between God and them, of his being in Covenant with them, and they with him, Gen. 17.11. and the uncricumcised of Abraham's Seed are said to have broken the Covenant. Ver. 14 or broken it down, or made it frustrate, as Ainsworth renders it, i. e. dissolved the terms or conditions of it; upon which account God would have them cut off from his people, i.e. at least excluded the privileges of those that kept his Covenant by making good the condition on their parts. But that repentance was the qualifying term of John's Baptism, as Circumcision was visibly the qualifying term of God's Covenant, appears both by John's Preaching, and the people's receiving of Baptism: By John's preaching; for it's said that he Preached the Baptism of Repentance, Luke 3.3. Acts 13.24. Now what was it for him to preach the Baptism of Repentance, but to preach that men ought to repent, and so to be Baptised? Which that it was, also appears in that those that did receive Baptism from him according to his preaching, did profess Repentance; for it's said, they were Baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins, Mat. 3.6. Mar. 1.5. But the Pharisees who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and Justified themselves Luke 16.15. & 18.9 11. though many of them came to John's Baptism, Mat. 3.7. yet it seems, disowning the terms on which it was to be administered, viz. repentance for remission of sins, they are said to have rejected (or made frustrate, as the word is) the Counsel of God against themselves, not being Baptised of him. Luk 7.30.  
But because the right understanding of the carriage of things here about in the very beginning of this Ministration of Baptism, is of great use by which to judge how it ought to be used now, the Ministration remaining still, though the first Ministrators are dead, Therefore I shall desire these two things may be well minded.  
1. That John's Ministry by Preaching and Baptising, was that from which the Gospel's Ministration began to take its rise or beginning, and which began that great turn which was made in the World by abolishing the legal way of Worship and Ordinances, and of bringing in the Evangelicall. Hereupon it's said; The Law and the Prophets were till John, since that time the Kingdom of God (i.e. the new and Gospel state) is Preached, and every Man presseth into it. Therefore also is the Ministration of John called the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Mark 1.1, 2. By the way then, if God was pleased to honour the Ordinance of Baptism with the ushering in of the Gospel's Ministration into the World, and to cause it thus to march in the front when he brought his first begotten into the World, had not they need to consider whether they do it right or no, who cause it to march in the Rear of all the things of the Gospel, in their Opinions of it, and affections to it?  
2. That as Baptism (except it were john's Preaching) was the first Gospel's Ordinance by which the change began, so the terms of the Administration and Reception of this Ordinance now varied from the terms of the administration and reception of Ordinances under the Law, as well as the Ordinance itself varied from those. That which gave men right and title to the Ordinances of the Law, Circumcision and the rest, was their having Abraham to their Father: That which now gave men right to John's Baptism, was not this, but their repentance; and this John sufficiently signifies Mat. 3.8, 9 Luke 3.9. when in his preaching to the people that came to his Baptism, especially the Pharisees, he said, Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father, but bring forth fruits meet for repentance: as if he should have said, Do not think that plea will now serve your turn to render you capable of this Gospel-Ordinance, viz that you have Abraham to your Father, though it hath served your turn heretofore as to your participation in Mosaical dispensations, but now if you w●ll be baptised indeed, and enter upon the Gospel-worship, then bring forth fruits meet for, or becoming repentance. Whereupon we sh●ll find that he did instruct them how they should live for the time to come, as well as to repent of, and confess their sins that were passed, Luke 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  
And now if Baptism were called the Baptism of Repentance, because none but repentant persons, or such as so professed themselves to be, were to partake thereof, than I am sure there is neither the same reason why Circumcision might be truly called the Circumcision of Repentance, nor yet that Infants are as duly capable of the Baptism of Repentance, as they were of Circumcision.   

XXXIV. Querie answered.  
1. Whether those words Acts 2.38.39. Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost; for the promise is to you, and to your children and to all that are a fare off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; I say, whether these words did so much enjoin those to whom spoken, to repent, in order to their being baptised, as encourage them both unto the one duty, and the other, upon account of the promise relating to them, I shall not need to determine: But surely the Querist does not think but that their Repentance was enjoined in order to their being baptised as well as for other causes; unless he will say, they were to be baptised first, and then to repent after, according to his own Method of baptising children.  
2. If the Parent's Title to the Promise was a ground or motive unto them to be baptised, but not be baptised without Repentance, but both to repent and to be baptised, as the Querist himself supposes it was; then why should the Promise be any more a ground to the children to be baptised without repentance, than it was to the Parents? or how, or by what passage, word, or syllable in the Text, does the Querist discern, that the Promise was made upon any other terms to the Children, than it was to the Parents?  
3. Is it not most apparent, that the whole tenor of the Promise here made, in respect of the persons to whom it is made (expressed in these words, you, your children, and all a far off) is governed and limited by that last clause of the 39 ver. even as many as the Lord our God shall call? If so, than the Promise did belong unto the children not otherwise then to the parents, nor had they any interest in the promise of remission of sin, of gift of the holy Ghost until called by Repentance and Baptisms, the terms here proposed, to render them capable of it, no more than their parents had.  
4. If we consider what the Promise is which is here said, to be made to them and to their children, it will evidently appear, that it, i.e. the good promised, belongs to none but repenting persons, 
† The Promise in a sense is made to all the world, that is the publication and offer of it. Mark 16.15. but Baptism doth not hereupon belong to all the world, but only to such as do believe the Promise: Faith being the condition of the good promised, Baptism is made by God, to be as an Appendix to that condition: Go preach the Gospel to every creature, i.e. offer them Salvation by jesus Christ: but upon what terms shall they receive this Salvation offered? These, [He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved:] so that Baptism comes in upon the promise embraced, not upon the offer of the promise. Now when Peter says, the promise is made to you and your children, the meaning is that the offer and tender of Salvation did belong unto them and their children, and to all a far off, and the good of it to as many as God should call. Though there be in Scripture several Discovery of the gracious council of God concerning little children, yet where ever any terms of grace and salvation are offered, or promised, upon the taking place of something to be believed, or done by the creature, there the Promise, or Offer of Grace, is always to be understood to respect, not Infants, but persons having the use and exercise of their reason and understanding, Deut. 11.1, 2. Mark 4.9, 23.  and consquently not to Infants: and if the Promise did not belong to Infants as Infants, than no Baptism upon account of the Promise. The things here promised, are the remission of sins, and gift of the holy Ghost: for those are the things the Apostle does ascertain them by the Promise.  
Now this Promise of remission of Sins and gift of the holy Ghost, is either absolute and without condition, or else it is only conditional; for between these there is no mean. If absolute, than the remission of Sins and gift of the holy Ghost were promised to all the Jews, and their children, without any condition at all, whether they did repent and were baptised or no; but this I think no man will affirm. If the Promise than was conditional, as you see it must needs be, than none had right to the Promise, that is to the things promised, but those that had performed the condition, for take away the condition of the Obligation or Promise, and the Obligation ceases to be: now the condition of the Promise is here clearly set by the Apostle to be, if not Repentance and a being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (for if any knows how upon good ground to divide them herein, let it so be) yet I am sure Repentance is: Repent and be baptised, etc. and ye shall receive, etc. that is, and thereupon ye shall receive, etc. And if Repentance was the condition of the Promise here mentioned by the Apostle, than I am sure the children of these Jews could no more have right to the Promise here made until they did repent, than the parents themselves could, and consequently no more right to Baptism upon account of the Promise, than they had.  
Which thing is so evident and clear, that I shall wonder if any rational man shall not discern it, if he will but give his reason and judgement full scope to consider it.   

XXXV. Querie answered.  
Here the Querist demands, Whether God doth smell in the assemblies of those, which he says judge themselves the only duly baptised persons under heaven, with any such pleasure or delight, as he smelleth many the Assemblies of those who are called unbaptised? or are they filled with the glory and presence of God at such a rate? or are there any such manifestations of the spirit there? or are the powers of the world to come, so active and busy in the Church meetings of the one, as they are in the other?  
Had the Querist given us to understand in what respects he speaks these things, and by what he makes judgement, when, and when not, such appearances of God as he speaks of, are vouchsafed men in their Assemblies, we might have known the better how to have satisfied his demand. If he judge of the presence of God, and the activity of the powers of the world to come in this case, by those effects which the ministration of the Gospel in such or such Assemblies works in men, in causing them to deny themselves in their worldly interest, not seeking the great things of this world, but being content to lose the favour and respect of men, the love of relations, and to expose themselves to the censures, hard thoughts, evil speakings, reproachings, revile, scoffings, laughings, and oppositions of men, that they might approve themselves faithful to God; and likewise in causing them to seek the honour of God, and good of Men, in dispensing the Gospel freely, and persuading all to a close and entire conformity thereto, both in their drawings nigh to God in the matters of his house and worship, and in their deportment and carriage towards men in common conversation; I say, if judgement shall be made of the presence of God with his people by such effects as these, which yet were the great tokens of the presence of his grace in the fi●st times of the Gospel, then doubtless the Querist needed not to have made a question of it, where these are most visible. Or if he will estimate the presence of God we speak of, by those glorious successes which he is pleased to give unto the meetings, Ministry, and endeavours of his Servants in bringing in great numbers and multitudes both of men and women, to be obedient to the Faith, according to the Doctrine and Order of the Gospel, than I shall desire him to cast his eyes abroad in the Land, and then tell us, by whose hands the greatest part of those many Churches that are separated from the national way, have been planted, especially in those places, where not long since, scarce so much as a face of Religion was to be seen.  
As concerning many of those of whom such Churches do consist; it is very true that that which our Saviour speaks of the Ministry of the Prophets disposing and preparing a People for the hands of the Apostles, and for that Gospel-mould into which they were to cast them, may aptly enough be applied to the Ministry of the Baptists in planting and building of Churches of such materials, as were in part prepared to their hands. John 4.37, 38. Herein is that saying true; One soweth, & another reapeth: I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: Other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labour. But the Lord hath been pleased not only to use them as his workmen to polish some living stones which were in part hewed before, and for the building them up into spiritual houses, putting them into the right order and way of worshipping God, perfecting as to this, that which was lacking before, but hath also so wonderfully prospered his word in their mouths, in turning of men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, in several the dark places of this Nation, that I confess I have not heard of the like testimony given by God to the endeavours of any other sort of men in these days: and surely such things as these, were wont to be accounted signs of the presence of the Lord with his people, Acts 11.21. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord. Ne●ther can it reasonably be thought, that the Scriptures are as a sealed Book among these Men whilst such effects are produced by their opening and pressing of them: Well may it be indeed that the Scriptures are not dished and carved out by these men, with such strains of humane Art and Oratory as th●y may be by some others; but we know who it was, who though he had as himself says, Tongues more than many others, yet did decline ●he persuasible words of men's Wisdom in his Preaching the Gospel to men, lest their faith should have stood in the Wisdom of men, and not in the Power of God, 1 Cor. 2.4, 5. And I am sure that may be tru●y said in the vindication of these, which Paul was feign sometimes to speak in his own vindication when disparaged by some of the flaunting Preachers of those Times, 
2 Cor. 11.6.  viz. But though I be rude in Speech, yet not in Knowledge. I should not have mentioned any thing of this nature, but that there was a kind of necessity for it, but if I have played the fool in this confident boasting, as the Apostle speaks, you know who hath compelled me to it.   

XXXVI. Querie answered.  
Here I confess I cannot but wonder at the oversight of the Querist, in that he brings Mark. 6.44. John 6.10. compared with Mat. 14.21. to prove that both Women and Children are to be understood, when men only are named, when as indeed his quotations serve to prove the quite contrary. For whereas Mark and John in the places before mentioned, report the men that did eat of the five Loaves and two fishes, to be about five thousand men; Matthew he reports the persons eating hereof to be about five thousand men, besides Women and Children. So that Mark and John take notice only of the number of the men in their relation of the Miracle, whereas Matthew though he does exactly agree with them as touching the same number of men, yet he intimates that there were Women and Children that did eat, besides the five thousand men. By which it evidently appears, that though Women and Children were joined with the men in the same action, yet that where John and Mark mention the men only, the Women and Children are not to be understood as comprehended in that number, which as I say is the contrary to that for the proof whereof those Texts were alleged. And therefore this is so fare from being any ground to conceive that children's being Baptised, is meant when Men and women's only is mentioned, as that it is a ground to conceive the contrary.   

XXXVII. Querie answered.  
Here the Querist supposes that though it should be proved that there were no Children Baptised during the Apostles days, that yet it would no more follow from thence that Children ought not to be Baptised now, than it would have followed, that because the Israelites omitted to curcumcise their Children for forty years, Josh. 5. that therefore it was not lawful for them to Circumcise them afterwards. To which I answer, that it is granted, that the one would no more follow then the other, if there were a like command for the one as there was for the other. And therefore I marvel that the Querist should so contrary to this, in other Queries, argue the nonnecessity of a man's being Baptised, if he have but passed the time of his first entrance upon the profession of Christ, as he does Qu. 22. But why the Querist should suppose that the Baptising of Children now, should be more necessary than it was in the Apostles days, I know not, neither does he (nor as I believe can he) give us any account.  
Something indeed he alleges as a reason such as it is, why possibly Christ & the Apostles might omit the Baptising of Children in their time, though otherwise lawful, and that which they had been bound to do, had not such a reason interposed, and it is this, viz. Because Paul said, I was not sent to Baptise, but to Preach the Gospel: meaning, as he expounds this saying, that Baptising was not only not the Principal, but not any considerable end of his sending, but the publishing, of the Gospel. Which reason he further amplifies thus: If he were not sent to Baptise neither one age, nor one Sex or other, neither could he be sent to Baptise Children, and if not he, than neither Christ nor the rest of the Apostles, in the sense declared; and then what marvel if whilst sent about matters incomparably greater, they should not be so intent upon things of a secondary and lighter consequence as to persecute them to the uttermost of what they lawfully might. To all which I answer.  
1. I cannot consent to the interpretation which the Querist gives of those words, Christ sent me not to Baptise, etc. When he thereby would have us understand, that for Paul to Baptise, was no considerable end of his being sent of Christ, if by Baptising we understand Baptising either in his own person or by seeing it done by some other hands; Which latitude notwithstanding the Querist allows. For there is no doubt but that for him to cause Baptism to be administered to men when they did believe, was a considerable end of the Apostles sending, as well as his preaching the Gospel that men might believe, and therefore they are joined in the Commission thus: go ye therefore teach all Nations, Baptising them, etc. When therefore he says, Christ sent him not to Baptise, doubtless he means, that the injunction did not lie upon him so much to administer Baptism with his own hands (for that is the thing of which he was speaking) as to Preach the Gospel, because that being a work that might be done by an ordinary Disciple, he was not otherwise obliged in that case but to take care that it should be done, if not by himself, yet by some other, Acts 10.48. Peter commanded them to be Baptised in the Name of the Lord: possibly by such assistants as the Apostles were wont to take with them, and not unlike for that very purpose as well as for other causes, Acts 13.5. & 15.38. Just as it was in the case of Ministering to the poor; it lay upon the Apostles, as the care of all the Churches did, to take care that Deacons should be chosen for that work, but that they should be burdened with a personal attendance upon that service (though sometimes they undertook it seemed to them an unreasonable thing, seeing they had other work to attend which could not so well be done by other hands as that might, Acts 6.2, 3 4 But if Baptism had been so inconsiderable a business, and so little concerning the Apostles to take care of, as this reason of the Querist imports, one would think they should not have made such haste as Paul and Silas did to Baptise the Jailor and his house, not only the same hour of the night, but even whilst those cutting lashes and stripes which they had newly received, were fresh upon them. Nor would Annanias have hastened Paul as he did to be Baptised before he did eat or drink, when as he had now fasted three days, Acts 9.9.18, 19 & 22.16. Surely if the like case should fall out in our days, we would say God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice.  
2. That the Baptising of Children was not so necessary in the Apostles days, but that the Apostles did defer the Baptising of them if not so long as the Israelites did defer Circumcision, Josh. 5. yet that they did defer it till they came to give account of their F●ith I willingly grant; but that they did so long suspend the Baptising of men after they believed, I cannot believe, because I find the contrary: and yet if you observe, the reason is no otherwise a reason why though if children's Baptism had been lawful, the practise of it might have been forborn in the Apostles days, then that the Baptising of Believers themselves might have been forborn, and yet it seems that could not be forborn upon any such pretence. For can we lightly imagine that the Apostles hands should at any time be fuller of work, then when they had those many thousands before them, and such an advantageous opportunity of Preaching the Gospel as then presented itself, Acts 2. and therefore if they might have used such a liberty of deferring Baptism as the Querist imagines, upon account of more important affairs lying upon their shoulders, why should they have put themselves upon any such straits, as to Baptise three thousand the s●me day they converted them? Doub●●e●t the opportunities of ma●y weeks would have been little enough according to the zeal of ou● Age, especially if Baptism be thought so inconsiderable a thing as to be done by leisure.  
3. If the Baptising of Infants had been any part of the Will of God or of his institutions in the Apostles days, I cannot so easily think, but that the Apostles notwithstanding their more weighty affairs, would in some time of their lives or other have found time and opportunity of fulfilling that part of righteousness as well as others, or how ever, would have enjoined others this practise, or else surely they would not have answered the Commission of their Master, whose injunction was, that they should teach the Believers to observe whatsoever he had commanded them, Mat. 28.20.  
And therefore to what purpose is there in this case, mention made of those cases wherein a man may break a Law and yet be blameless? or will any of those Scripture instances the Querist points to, agree any better with the case in hand, than harp and harrow? 
Mat. 12, 3, 4, 5.  The Priests in the Temple killed Beasts for Sacrifice on the Sabbath because commanded, which otherwise had not been lawful, Ergo; The Apostles might lawfully forbear Baptising all their days though a duty commanded, having other work to do of greater moment, though they had opportunity of doing both this and that. The Disciples plucked Ears of Corn on the Sabbath, and David did eat the show bread in case of necessity to sustain hunger and save life, Ergo, Christ and the Apostles might omit Baptising all their time, though they had no such necessity of other engagements upon them, but that they might either do it themselves or command it to be done by others; unless we will suppose they had not time and leisure to give out such a command where they came, which yet we find they sometimes did Acts 10.48. John 4.2. as they did also in other cases, in appointing that to be done by others, which they could not so well attend themselves Tit. 1.5.  
Without peradventure, the misunderstanding the Apostles intendment in that expression of his, Christ sent me not to Baptise, but to Preach the Gospel, hath prov●d a snare to many in these days, to think more meanly of the Ordinance of Baptism, than ever the Apostle thought. For doubtless it was not the Apostles drift in those words to bring down the esteem of baptism and to magnify Preaching, but partly to show how little reason any had to glory in that they had been Baptised by his hands rather than by such and such; but more especially to satisfy them as touching the reason why though he converted all or most of them to the Faith, as 1 Cor. 4 15. that yet he himself Baptised so few of them as he had said, 1 Cor. 1.14.16. and his reason is not fetched from the nonnecessity of Baptism (for we shall find that he took care to have them Baptised presently upon their believing, Acts 18.8.) but from the non necessity of having it dispensed by his hands: and he further gives this account why he did not Baptism them himself, but set others to do it, not because he wanted time and opportunity to do it, but lest any should say that he Baptised in his own Name.   

XXXVIII. Querie answered.  
1. Whether the Principle of the Children of new, alias old Baptism, which puts them upon Baptising, believers as the Apostles did, be a By-way, or the Principle of the men of old alias new Baptism, which puts them upon Baptising Children, be the By way, let the Scriptures judge, or at least be the Rule to judge by: there I am sure the Children the Querists speaks of, find that practised which answers their Principle; if the Querist, and the Brethren of his way, cannot find theirs there too, but only fancy to themselves they can fetch it about with a long Arm, let them look to it, lest their way do not prove at last a By-way, and in the mean time that which leads them into many other Byways, By-thoughts, By-saying, which will be found too light in the balance of the Gospel, and which will turn to no good account in the day when God shall try every man's work of what sort it is, 1 Cor. 3.13.  
2. As for counting all persons not of our way, unclean and unholy, I have already accounted with the Querist in some other Queries for those expressions, and have showed him how he hath miscast the reckoning: I would feign have him to know that we can call and count some of men's ways and practices unclean and unholy, and yet not so judge of their persons as to a total uncleanness. Do we not know that Asa and Jehosophat were Servants of the Lord in their times, and did approve themselves to a good degree of uprightness towards God in taking away the high places and the groves of the Idols, 2 Chron. 14.5. and 17.6. and yet for all that, were to blame, and it is left on record as their blemish, that they did not also take away the high places which the people had erected for the worship of the true God, 
2 Chron. 15.17. & 20.33.  to save themselves the labour of going to Jerusalem, the place which God had chosen to place his Name in, whither they ought to have gone, Deut. 12.5. In like manner we do acknowledge that ye have well done, and doubt not but God hath taken it well at your hands, in that ye have advanced to that degree of Reformation at which ye have arrived; but I must needs say, it yet remains a blemish upon you, that you suffer amongst you any of those ways which men have formerly devised to make the way of the Gospel more easy and plausible, as to the fl●sh, than Christ hath made it; and these blots are so essential 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 ourselves guilty of that which we condemn 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 Unity, Love, and Peace, by which they were bound up with other Churches before, it is nothing but what the Protestant Bishops underwent from the Pap●sts when they went off from them; and the P●esbyterians from the Prelates; and the Independents from the Presbyterians, when they separated themselves from them: and therefore I hope no wise man will be much startled with such scarecrows as these, in his eyeing a work of Reformation, or think the worse of the baptismal way, because it carries 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 itself, and acceptance with God by this despised way of Baptism, surely if any do estimate Christianity by this only (for otherwise I hope it may bear its part, and signify its number in the r ckoning as well as other Christian duties) they are much to b●ame; but that the Querist did ever know, or hath ground to believe that any the men he speaks of, much less 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 poor Baptists with men of such unworthy strains 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 knows) we must leave to God and sober men to judge.   

XXXIX. Querie answered.  
1. That Mr. Philpot spoke or wrote, as he thought, in affirming Auxentius an Arrian to be the first, and Pelagius the second, that nyed the Baptism 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 affirm any such thing, unless he had been more than a man, and had known what, and when every man in the world that discoursed these things, had affirmed or denied concerning them. Besides, were not Authors of Books in former times, at least some of them, men of like infirmity with several 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 historical relations and representations concerning the Anabaptists (falsely so called) for truth, as well as they are, and are like to be, who accordingly do, or sh●ll credit all that is written of the Independents, by men disaffected to their way? Besides, what credit can be given to ancient Authors hereabout, when many ancient Books 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 darkness) what would best serve their interest.  
And that which is yet more considerable, is, that if it should appear by unquestionable History (which for aught I could ever learn does not, but the contrary) that the baptising of Children had been practised in the next age after the Apostles, yet unless it could be made appear 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 practice now, because as the mystery of iniquity did begin to work in the Apostles days, so there was a departing in part from the purity and simplicity of the Gospel, and an introducing of the inventions of men, whilst it was yet but early. I know, saith Paul, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock, also of your own 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, entitled A very plain and well grounded Treatise concerning Baptism, 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 forbidden them not: he speaketh thus, Let them come when they are grown, and are able to be instructed: when they can learn 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 knows, that Tertullian lived long before Auxentius and Pelagius had a being in world, and therefore by this it will appear, that Mr. Philpot was not worthy of credit in reporting them to be the first that denied the baptising of Children.  
Page 28. Erasmus in annotationibus supra, 5. cap. ad Rom. Baptising of young Children was not as yet in use by S. Paul's time. Roffensis contra cap. Babylon. The first rulers in their Church have used such manner of baptism, 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 only a custom of the Church.  
Page 30. Bucerus in his book entitled the groundwork and cause, etc. In the Congregation of God, confession of sins is always the first, the which in times past went before baptism, for commonly children were baptised when they came to their understanding. And again, in the beginning of the Chu ch, no man was baptised & received into the congregation, but those that through hearing the word, wholly gave ov●r and submitted themselves to Christ. And again, in annotationibus super 4. john. So much as in the apostolical writings are written of baptism, is apparent that Baptism was Administered to none by the Apostles, but those of whom they (concerning their regeneration) made no doubt.  
Page 21. Cassander in libello de infantium Baptismo: It is certain that some believers in time past, have withholden baptism from their children until they were grown, and could understand and remember the mysteries of their faith; yea also counselled not to administer baptism, as by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen appeareth.  
In same Page Zwinglius in his Book of Articles, Artic. 18. In the old time, children were openly instructed, who when they came to understand, were called Catechumen, i. e, such as are instructed in the word of salvation; and when they had imprinted the faith in their Hearts, and made Confession thereof with their Mouths, they were admitted to Baptism.  
Page 25. Lodovicus vives in Augustinum de civetate dei. Lib. 1. Cap. 26. No man in times past was brought to be baptised, but those who were come to their full growth, who having learned what it concerned, of their own accord desired the same.  
Page 31. Luther in his book of Annabaptisme acknowledgeth, that it cannot be proved by sacred Scripture, that children's baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after th● Apostles. Page 20. Rupertus Tuitienfis lib 4 de divinus officiis cap. 18. In former times, the custom in the Primitive Church was, that they administered not the Sacrament o● Regeneration, but only at the feast of Easter and Penticost, and all the children of the Church which throughout the whole year, through the word were MOVED, when Easter came, gave up their names, and were the following days till Penticost, instructed in the rules of Faith, rehearsed the same by their baptism, and dying thus with Christ, risen again with him.  
Page 15. Justin Martyr in oratione ad Anthonium Pium: I will declare unto you, how we offer up ourselves to God, after that we are renewed through Christ. Those amongst us that are instructed in the faith and believe that which we teach them is true, being willing to live according to the same, we do admonish to fast and pray for the forgiveness of their sins, and we also fast and pray with them: And when they are brought by us unto the water, and there as we were new born, are they also by new birth renewed: And then in calling upon God the Father, the Lord jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost, they are washed in water. Note that this Author is one of the first extant after the Apostles days.  
Take also a few instances of such who though borne of Christian Parents, yet were not baptised till instructed in the Faith.  
Page 16. Erasmus and Wiclevius in vita Hieronomi ex ipsis Scriptis collecta Hieronimus, borne in the City Sydon, of Christian Parents, and brought up in the Christian Religion, was baptised at Rome in the 30 year of his age. Also, Paulinus de vita Ambrosij & Nauclerus Chror. Gener. 13. Ambrose borne of Christian Parents, his Father's Name was Ambrose, and his Mother's Name Marcelina remained instructed in the faith unbaptised till he was chosen Bishop of Milan, at which time he received Baptism of a Catholic Priest.  
Likewise Nauclerus Generate. 14. Anno Dom. 391. Augustinus the Son of the virtuous Monica, being instructed in the Faith, was baptised, when he was about 30 years of age, at the Feast of Easter. Moreover, Idem Generate. 14. Constantinus the Emperor, born of Helena the Christian Queen, was by Christian Priests converted to the Faith, and was baptised by Pope Silvester. Historia tripartita, lib. 1. Bibliorum de Trinitate. Theodosius the Emperor borne in Spain, his Parents being both Christians, was even from his youth instructed and educated in the Catholic Faith, who falling sick at Thessalonia, was by Achalio B●shop of the City, baptised, and thereupon recovered of his sickness.  
Page 21. Pontius the Son of Markus a Christian, was Catechised and instructed in the Christian Religion, and afterwards was baptised by Pontiano the Bishop.  
Page 22. Nazarius the Son of a Christian woman called Perpetua, embraced and followed his Mother's Religion even from his tender age, who being Catechised & instructed by Lino the Pope, received also Baptism. Also, Tecla and Erasma, Daughters of Valentinian a Christ●an of Aquilea, were in the days of Nero the Emperor instructed in the Faith by their Father, and brought up in the Fear of God, who being Catechised by Harmagora, were baptised in a running water.  
And now let the Reader judge, whether these Testimonies against the practice of baptising Infants of old, have not much more in them, and are worthy of much more credit the● Mr. Philpots Testimony for it, together with Austin and jerom to help him.   

XL. Querie answered.  
1. Whether faith or the profession of Faith be the only or best ground whereon to build a Baptismal administration, we shall not need to dispute; it is sufficient that according to Scripture, it is such a ground, as without which baptism was not administered to any (that we can find) in the Apostles days, and therefore we say, neither ought it now so to be.  
2. If the Querist thinks that the Apostles did insist upon believing, or a profession of believing, in such men and women as were baptised by them, only for want of better grounds, as supposing there were better to be had let him but prove it, and I will think so too; Or else for my part I think they had no reason to expect better than those which were every way sufficient, or then such as God had appointed for that purpose; or if God did appoint any o●her, why does not the Querist produce us a copy of that order or Appointm●nt of God?  
3. The Querist puts the Question, whether Faith, or a Profession of Faith in order to Baptism, were insisted on merely as, or because such in their absolute or positive nature, or whether not rather in respect of their relative natures and properties? To which I answer, that for my part I am of the Querists mind as unto this, that it is altogether irrational, yea indeed I think a thing so irrational as never entered into any man's head to think, that Faith or a profession of Faith, should be required of men in order to Baptism, simply for Faith sake or merely for profession sake.  
4. But though we are not so absurd as to hold Faith necessary to Baptism only for faith's sake, yet it does not follow that then we must needs hold with the Querist, that Faith is no otherwise, or in no other respect to be insisted on as necessary to Baptism, but only as it is Significative or Declarative unto the Baptizers and others, of the happy estate of those in whom Faith is, as being persons in the Grace and Favour of God. For if persons being in a happy condition as touching Gods love to them, be not the adequate reason why he wou●d have them Baptised, than the knowledge of this that they are in such a condition, cannot be the adequate reason of men's admitting them to Baptism; because the reason of the ones participation, must be the reason of the others admission of them to that participation, and God's reason of appointing Baptism to be administered to men, must guide and limit men in their administration of it in respect of the persons to whom they do administer it.  
But now that persons being in a happy condition already, is not the full and adequate reason why God would have them baptised, but rather that they might be yet in a better and more happy condition, is most apparent from the end of all Laws and Ordinances of God g ven unto men, and therefore this among the rest, viz. the further good and benefit of men to be promoted by th●m; for otherwise they would be no argument or token of his love to them: And why else should God impose the use of them upon his Creature? Certainly it is not because God stands in any need of them, or of their using of them, but because his Creature hath need of them, and may be bettered by them. Deut. 10.13. Mark. 2.27 Job 22.3. & 35.7 8.  
If then the good of men, that is a further good, be the reason why God would have them Baptised, than Faith becomes requisite here unto upon th●s account, viz. not to declare them in good condition already, but because it is that qualification or mean, without which the ordinance will do them no good, without which the end of Baptism is not attainable, unless we will needs be of that Popish Opinion, to think that the Grace of God and good of the Ordinance, accrues merely by the work done, which opinion, it's very probable, g●ve the first being unto children's Baptism.  
Faith than is to be insisted on in persons to whom Baptism is to be administered, not for Faith's sake, nor yet simply as it is declarative of their being in a happy condition in whom it is, but rather as it is declarative of this, viz. that those persons in whom it is, and that by means of it are in a due capacity to receive that good by baptism which God intends men in it, and so the proper subjects of it.  
5. That, it seems, which much inclines the Querist to think that Fa●th was insisted on by the Apostles as necessary to be found in those to whom they administed baptism, only as declarative of their being in a good and happy condition, and which would not so have been insisted on by them, could they have come to the certain knowledge of that their good condition any other way, I say that which it seems inclines him thus to think, is this, because otherwise he cannot tell how to conceive that Christ should be a meet or duly qualified subject for this administration, he having no such Faith as the Apostles required in those whom they baptised, nor does he think that any man will presume to say, that he was baptised either contrary to, or besides the rule or mind of God touching persons meet to be baptised, especially considering that himself renders this account of his desiring of and submitting to baptism, viz. because it became him to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. 3.15. To which I answer.  
I will not indeed presume to say, that Christ was Baptised, either contrary to, or besides, the rule given by God, touching persons meet to be Baptised: But yet it will not therefore follow, that John's knowledge, of the good and happy condition that Christ was in, in respect of God's love to him, was the only and adequate reason and ground of his administering baptism to him. For though all the ends and reasons of administering Baptism to others, did not meet, or were to be found in Christ, to render him a meet subject of Baptism, as viz. Repentance for Remission of sins; yet there were several things in Christ, obvious to John, besides his being in the favour of God, which in common with others, rendered him a meet and capable subject of baptism. As  
1. The confession of his Faith, or which is the same, the declaration of himself to John after such a manner, and upon such terms, as by which John did perceive him a person meet to be baptised: for otherwise how should John come to know that he was such an one? for till he came to be baptised of him, it seems he did not know him to be the Son of God, as he himself test●fies John 1.31.33.34. And however, if John knew that Christ was the Son of God, either by his confession or otherwise, he knew also, that he did believe himself so to be: which very faith being found in another, viz. of believing Jesus to be the Son of God, rendered him a meet subj ct of baptism according to common rule, as we see in the Eunuch, the profession of whose faith, and upon which Philip did baptise him was but this; I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Acts 8.37. And why should not the same faith which rendered another duly capable o● baptism, render him capable of it in like manner?  
2. Another common reason of adm ssion to baptism found in Christ, was his professed desi●e to obey the righteous Law, institution, or declared Will of God, in being baptised, though perhaps in other respects, he had not that need of it, as others that received it had: Suffer it to be so now, saith he to john i.e. form to be baptised by thee, for thus it becomes us (i.e. himself and others) to fulfil all righteousness, or every L●w, or Precept of God, whereof this of Baptism was one. And though John as it seems otherwise judged Christ to have no need of his baptism, yet upon this profession of Christ's desire to obey God therein, and his declaring it necessary, and comely for him so to do, John did baptise him; for the Text saith Then he suffered him, Mat. 3.15. And I desire it may be observed, that the true reason of Christ his being baptised, is here rendered, and that is, not his being in the love and favour of God, as the Querist supposes, but partly his desi●e to fulfil and observe the same l●w himself, which was imposed upon other men; and partly because of that meetness, or comeliness that was in such an act of obedience or conformity to the Will of God as that was: which may w●ll shame those, who think themselves exempt from water baptism, because they have attained more otherwise, than those new borne babes in Christ, were wont to have attained, at the time of their taking up baptism: Christ, though he had not that need of Baptism as others had, yet he desired to show himself as obedient as any in stooping, though it had been to the lowest ordinance, and least command of God.  
3. That account which Christ had now given, of his knowledge, faith, and desire to obey God, might well be a reason for John to conclude, that some good and blessed effect would redound to Christ upon his taking up that Ordinance of baptism, as indeed there did; for there upon the holy Ghost descended upon him in the likeness of a done, and likewise a voice from the Father, declaring his high contentment in him, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Mat. 3.16.17. And this reason of john's administering baptism to Christ, was much of the same nature with that ground upon which other men and women were wont to be baptised: For their declared qualification, of their Knowledge, Faith and Desire to obey God, was still a ground to him that did administer baptism, to believe that the ordinance would not be in vain to them, but a means of much blessing.  
And therefore, unless some such qualifications as these, could in some measure be found in Infants, to render them capable subjects of baptism, as well as Christ, theris nothing at all to be inferred from Christ's being baptised, to justify the administration of baptism to them. Neither on the other hand, is there any thing duly to be argued from john's administering baptism to Christ, to prove that a profession of faith, and a willingness to obey God, is not necessarily required in all persons whatsoever, to whom baptism ought to be administered.  
The premises then considered, it is so far from being as evident as the Sun at noonday, that all persons, and particularly Infants who may be known to be in the love and favour of God without a profession of faith, are without faith, or a profession of faith, as regularly and completely qualified for baptism, as the loudest professors of their faith under Heaven, as that the quite contrary thereunto is evident, if not as evident as the Sun at noonday, which any but those that are blind may see, yet evident enough to be discerned by considering men.  
And thus, though I have not said all that might have been given in by way of answer to these Queries, (for then perhaps as much might have been bestowed upon one, as now is upon them all;) yet I hope by what is said, there are such hints of light delivered, as by a rational improvement whereof the Reader may easily come at ample satisfaction touching the cases of conscience therein debated.   
FINIS.