Baptism was delivered by God Thus also Moses is said by Stephen to have RECEIVED the lively Oracles to give unto them Act. 7. 38. In this sense also Christ is said to have RECEIVED of the Father the promise of the holy Ghost which he shed forth Act. 2. 33. And if Abraham's RECEIVING Circumcision in this place signified his being circumcised in the flesh it must follow that all his posterity receiving circumcision in this sense as well as he should at least in part all of them be Fathers of them that believe as well as he in as much as this prerogative is manifestly by the Apostles suspended upon that receiving of Circumcision which is here spoken of not upon the end for which he received it 2. By the Faith which Abraham is here said to have had being yet uncircumcised and of the righteousnesse of which he is said to have received Circumcision as a sign and seal is not meant that individuall Faith whether act or habit which was in Abraham but the species or kind of Faith which he had In such a sense as this the Apostle saith that that Faith which was in Timothie dwelt first in his Grandmother Loïs 2 Tim. 1. 5. meaning the same species or kind of Faith i. as himself also expresseth it of Faith Unfeigned When I call to remembrance the unfeigned Faith that is in thee which first dwelt in thy Grandmother Lois and thy mother Eunice and I am perswaded that in thee also In like manner by the Faith of Abraham twice in this very chapter Rom. 4. 12 16. is meant that species or kind of Paith which Abraham had 3. For the cleare understanding the Scripture before us it is diligently to be observed that the Apostle doth not say that Abraham received circumcision as either sign or seal of his Faith but of the righteousnesse of the Faith which he had i. of that justification or justified estate wherein by vertue of the counsell will and decree of God in that behalf he was invested or instated by and upon his beleving Circumcision was neither sign nor seal of Abrahams Faith nor of any other mans Faith how like soever unto Abraham's but of the righteousnes of his Faith yet not as his but as true and unfeigned 1. such as unto which God by covenant and promise had annexed the Grace and blessednesse of Justification From whence it follow 's 4. That circumcision could not be a sign or seal of the righteousnesse of Abrahams Faith only individually or personally considered but must needs be this sign and seal of the same righteousnesse of the like Faith in what person or persons soever it should be found Yea it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith simply and indefinitely considered i. as promised or covenanted by God unto man-kind So that whether any person among the Jews had been circumcised or not and so whether any circumcised person had beleeved or not yet was Circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith unto them as well as unto those who were both circumcised and believed i. As God made this covenant with the world or man-kind in generall that whosoever truly believed in him should hereby become righteous or which is the same be justified so likewise upon the same generall and unlimited terms he gave the Ordinance of circumcision by the hand or ministerie of his servant Abraham for a sign and seal of his truth and faithfulnesse in this covenant i. that he would justifie all those without exception who should truly beleeve This is evident from these words in the fall of the verse in their dependance upon the former that righteousness might be imputed unto them also unto them i. unto all that should believe whether circumcised or uncircumcised as if he should have said Therefore Abraham received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousnes of that kind of Faith which he had being yet uncircūcised that so all those without exception who should beleeve as he did might have the same assurance with him that righteousnesse should be imputed unto them also as it had been unto him i. that they should be as certainly justified by God as he had been Mr. Fishers notion denying Circumcision of old and Baptism now to be any sign at all unto children is very childish and unworthy a Considering man Circumcision was the same i. the same sign unto children which it was unto men nor was there any difference change or alteration in it or in the signifying nature or propertie of it when it was actually apprehended and understood by these children being now become men But the present inability or incapacity in children to understand the language or signification of a sign doth not prove that that which is really a sign is no sign unto them it onely proves that it is not apprehended as a sign or in the signifying relation of it by them If signs be no signs unto children because they do not at present understand their signification it will follow that there are none at all in the world unto men whilst they are asleep or whilst thorow any ingagement of their minds or thoughts otherwise they do not actually mind or attend the significations of them A sign is not therefore called a sign because it alwayes actually signifies one thing or other unto any man but because it is apt to signifie such or such a thing unto those that are in a capacitie whether more immediate or more remote to understand it and withall actually mind the signification But the conceit we now speak of is so waterish that there is no tast either of truth or reason in it Sect. 62. 5. By the premises levied in the consideration of the Scripture before us duly considered it clearly appeareth that when Abraham's said to have RECEIVED the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THAT BELIEVE the meaning is that God by casting this peculiar honour upon Abraham to make him from amongst all the men in the world the Receiver of and as it were his Great feoffee in trust for his Great Ordinance of Circumcision which he intended for a sign and seal of that blessed Covenant of Grace made with him and his seed and in them with all the world did characterise and commend him unto the world as the Father of all that should ever after beleeve i. for the most exemplarie and signall Beleever that ever the world had seen the worth and transcendent excellency of whose Faith was enough to replenish the earth with a generation of beleevers The meaning of this expression That he might be the Father of c. according to the frequent use of the verb substantive in the Scripture is that he might be declared or made known to be the Father in the sence mentioned of all that believe That ye may be the
the Shew-bread which was not lawful for him to eat neither for those that were with him but for the Priests only Mat. 12. 23. And the Reason of this Conclusion is evident For if the far greater number both of matters of Faith or things to be beleeved and likewise of matters of practise or things to be done be matters of inference consequence and deduction from the Scriptures and not of literal or express assertion which is an unquestionable truth and hath in part been proved already it follows with an high hand of evidence and truth that they who are more defective less experienced less understanding then others in drawing Conclusions from Premisses must needs be more ignorant then others as well of the one as the other I mean of the mind of God as well in matters of faith as of practise Consectary If the more dull less experienced and apprehensive men are in drawing regular deductions and conclusionâ— out of their premises they must needs remain so much the more ignorant of the mind and will of God in many things and so be in the more danger also of denying them then need it not seem strange unto any man that the generality or far greater part of those who oppose Infant-Baptism should be ignorant of the mind of God as well concerning Baptism as many other things considering that they are inexpert in the Word of righteousness and have not through use their senses exercised to discern both good and evil I mean neither legitimate and sound deductions from the Scripture on the one hand nor those that are spurious and mistaken on the other CONSIDERATION VIII TO multiply precepts or bands of Conscience whether negative or affirmative above the number of those wâ—ich God himself in his Word hath imposed in either kind is constructively to deny the sufficiency of the Scriptures the perfection of the Law of God and to usurp his Authority Proof The truth of this Consideration is I presume every mans notion and sence For additionals are not wont to be made to things which are perfect but to that which is imperfect Nor if it be supposed that the conscience of a man be sufficiently bound by the Law of God in all cases whatsoever need there be any additional obligations in this kind Consectary If the binding of mens Consciences with more bands then those wherewith God himself hath bound them be a sin of that evil import which the Consideration expresseth then do they who impose it as matter of conscience upon men to refrain the baptizing of their Infants and again to baptize when they baptize with all under water transgress that great transgression in as much as God hath no where in Scripture either prohibited the baptizing of children by any Law or commanded the baptizing of any person by forcing thrusting dowzing ducking or dipping the whole body under water CONSIDERATION IX WHat is more fully and plainly taught by God and delivered unto the world in the Old Testament or which may by clearness of deduction be evinced from this is more sparingly and with less expressiveness delivered in the New Proof It is a word of soberness and of truth though found among Philosophers that Natura sicut non deficit in necessariis sic neque abundat in superfluis As Nature is not wanting in things necessary so neither is it abounding in things superfluous This regularness in Nature being neither penurious on the one hand nor prodigal on the other discovers an answerable property and perfection in him who is the God thereof and hath formed her in his own likeness So then what he hath with sufficient evidence and clearness declared unto us in one part of his Word he doth but like himself in not making a like declaration of it the second time Nor is the New Testament less perfect then the Old because such duties which are to be practised under this Testament as well as they were under the Old are not as plainly and expresly enjoyned in this as they are in that For both Testaments being parts of one and the same Scripture and of equal Authority that which equally respecteth the times of both Testaments and is plainly and without parable taught in the former only is as sufficiently and to all ends and purposes taught as if it were taught with a like plainness in the latter also Thus the qualification of Magistrates as that they be chosen out of the people viz. over whom they are to bear rule able men fearing God men of truth hating covetousness * Exo. 18. 21 being thus plainly taught and declared in the Old Testament there was no occasion why they should be again thus largely and distinctly mentioned or required in the New neither hath the Wisdom of God done it There is the like consideration of several other Subjects as concerning the punishment of Adulterers some special duties of Kings the regulation of Wars in sundry particulars Oaths before Magistrates c. Concerning which enough being delivered and this with clearness enough in the Old Testament we hear little of any of them in the New Consectary If there be no ground either in Scripture or in Reason why the mind of God about any particular subject when discernable enough by the writings of the Old Testament should be again particularly revealed in the New then is there a plain account to be given why the New Testament speaketh so sparingly concerning the mind of God touching the admission of Children into Church-membership considering that his mind herein was so sufficiently declared in the Old CONSIDERATION X. THey who reject or refuse to be satisfied with evident Consequences or Arguments drawn by reason from the Scriptures reject the Authority of the Scriptures themselves and his that speaketh in them Proof The reason hereof is plain viz. because whatsoever is substantially deducible from or out of the Scripture must needs be contained in the Scripture before the deduction of it made from thence otherwise it could not be truly and substantially deduced from hence For nothing can be drawn out from thence where it never was nor had any being Now whatsoever is contained in the Scripture is Scripture and of Scripture Authority Thus our Saviour himself teacheth us to call that Scripture not only which is expresly and in so many words either affirmed or denyed in the Scriptures but that also which is the fair and clear result of the Scripture He that beleeveth on me as the Scripture hath said out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters * John 7. 38. the Scripture no where affirming this but virtually or consequentially only So again he chargeth the Sadduces with ignorance of the Scriptures because they held and taught that there was no See Mr Baxter Plain Scripture proof c. p. 8 Resurrection of the dead notwithstanding the Scriptures then in being affirmed no such thing in expressness of terms especially not in that place which yet our
kind or other and the like these are as proper occasions for Beleevers to expresse themselves with devotion and religiousnesse of â—ffection to the affecting edifying quickning of by-standers as their baptizing Therefore if there be any such Christian and worthy doings by Beleevers at the time of their Baptism as Mr. A. speaks of they are not the proper fruits or effects of their being baptized or of their being to be baptized but meerly accidental hereunto and so no ends of Baptism more then of afflictions or of mercy in any kind received from God Yea Sect. 56. 3. When the Infants of Beleevers are baptized there may be and haply ought to be the same Christian actings and deportments in every kind in the Parents or those who offer them unto baptism So that the Spectators may by means or by occasion of their baptizing also be as much instructed edified quickned c. as they can or could be by the baptizing of these Parents themselves He that offereth his child to be baptized in the name of Christ hereby maketh as solemn as serious a profession of his faith in Christ and so of his Repentance as he could do by being baptized himself So that Spectators are no whit greater gainers by Beleevers-baptism then by infant-baptism Nay the truth is that they are or may be greater gainers by the latter For when a Beleever having been himself formerly baptized shall offer his Child also unto Baptism this argueth a greater stability and triednesse of faith in him then his offering himself unto Baptism doth who newly beleeveth A testimony given upon and after a thorough experience is coeteris paribus more authoritative and convincing then that which is given upon little or no trial Yea the baptizing of Infants must needs in this respect turn to a better account unto Spectators if by Spectators we mean either the Church or the world who may as well the one as the other if they please and have opportunity be present at any kind of baptizing then the baptizing of Beleevers because if Beleevers onely be baptized the occasions and opportunities of all baptismal edification are like to be fewer by many then they would be in case Infant-baptism were generally practised For many infants are taken away by death in their infancy and so never come to be Beleevers in Mr. A's sence in which case if they be not baptized all those opportunities of Baptismal edification are lost which might have been taken and happily improved by their baptizing I take no notice of the Anti-Scriptural notion upon which he argueth all along this part of his discourse viz. that Infants and Beleevers are two contra-distinct or opposite species of men We may have occasion to touch this hereafter Onely by the way I cannot but a little marvell why Mr. A. should ascribe unto his baptism of Beleevers such great matters of edification in respect of Spectators when as as far as I can yet understand the practitioners of this Baptism seek and take both times and places of greatest privacy for the administration and practice of it But the very truth is that Mr. A. doth but meerly trifle in all that long-some discourse pag. 12 13 14 c. wherein he builds upon this supposition formerly detected of the crime of vanity that One end of Baptism is the manifestation of Christ unto the world But Sect. 57. 4. Whereas p. 14. he supposeth that the Faith and Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots was made visible to the Priests and Elders by their being baptized upon their beleeving the Doctrine of John he sides more with his cause then either with reason or truth For 1. We lately shewed that in that universal and promiscuous recourse of people unto John to be baptized of him of which the Scripture speaks there could be no visibility of the truth or soundnesse of any mans faith or repentance in his being baptized much lesse of any particular species or kind of persons amongst them more then of others Nor doth the Scripture hold forth any such thing For 2. Whereas he saith that that which Matthew c. 21. 32. calls their beleeving of John Luke speaking of the same thing as I conceive calls it their justifying God in being baptized of John I conceive that he cannot lightly conceive that which here he saith he conceiveth For evident it is that what Matthew speaketh in the words cited he speaketh particularly of the Publicans and Harlots and as evident that what Luke speaketh in the words cited from him he speaketh of all the people And all the people that heard him viz. Christ speaking verily worthily of John and the Publicans justified God being baptized or rather having been baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of John not as Mr. A. again mis-reports IN being baptized of John The proposition IN which onely is the smiling lineament upon his cause in the face of the words as he transcribeth them is neither in the original nor in either the former or latter English translation A little after he stumbles at the same stone of mis-alledging the text whether wittingly or at unawares let the reader judge where pretending to represent the sin of the Priests and Elders in opposition to the Faith and Repentance of the Publicans and Harlots visible as he saith but untruly as hath been shewed in their baptism in the words of Luke 7. 30. he saith it was their rejecting the counsel of God against themselves IN not being baptized whereas as was now said there is not the least appearance of the proposition IN either in the original or translation The sence and import of the place is plainly and without parable this that the Priests and Elders in refusing the Baptism of John hereby discovered the prodigious folly and wickednesse of their hearts in rejecting the counsel of God concerning their justification and salvation by Faith in the Messiah whom John preached and this with so much the more authority and advantage to have been beleeved in his Testimony or Doctrine concerning him because he was extraordinarily raised up and sent by God to administer a new Ordinance amongst them The meaning is not as if that counsel of God which they are here said to have rejected against themselves consisted in this that he would have had them baptized by John but in this that he had purposed to justifie and save them by Faith in his son Jesus Christ This was the great and blessed counsel of God which they rejected frustrated or made void against themselves i. e. to the depriving of themselves of the two great blessings justification by the way and salvation in the end Concerning their not being baptized by John had they otherwise beleeved in Christ this could have turned to no such great prejudice unto them Nor was it the counsel of God that either they or any other sort of men should be baptized of John by way of necessity either to their justification or salvation For if so
should be initiatorie and primarily and ministrable unto Infants under the Law Circumcision was an Ordinance of such a nature so conditioned that it required nothing but a regular passiveness in its subject I meaÌ„ its ordinarie and most appropriate subject to the participation of it But now the Ordinance of the Supper is of quite another consideration to take and to eat and to drink and to do all this in remembrance of Christ require principles and abilities for action in him that performeth them And me thinks Mr. A's understanding might as reasonably be opposed with this question how an Infant of the eight day should be capable of Circumcision and yet uncapable of eating the Passeover as how an Infant being uncapable of the supper of the Lord should notwithstanding be judged a capable subject of Baptism yea imposition of hands being an Ordinance of this nature I mean not requiring any thing active in its subject about the reception of it was adjudged by the Lord Christ himself an Ordinance meet for little children Mat. 19. 15. I confesse that some very judicious and worthy men as Austin amongst the Ancient and Musculus amongst the Modern have judged it regular and meet that children should be admitted to the Lords Table also And Luther in one of his Epistles affirmeth that the Pighards a Bohemos qui parvulos communicant non probo quanquam non in hoc haretâ—coâ— cenceo Tom. 2 Epist Lutheri ad ad Nicolaum Haus mannum p. 333. or Protestants in Bohemia did in his time admit their children to the Lords Table with them as though he disliketh such their custome Sect. 154. What Mr. A. subjoyneth towards the close of his third argument he rather repeats then addes as himself acknowledgeth Only when he saith The whole ministration he means of the Gospell is denominated by Faith Gal. 3. 23 25. because Faith from first to last from one end of it to the other is to steer all affairs under it on mans part c. here I confesse is a new Notion or two For 1. by Faith Gal. 3. 23 25. I believe never Mr. A. p. 37 any Expositor understood a ministration or the ministration of the Gospel but rather the subject matter of this ministration or the fuller manifestation of those heavenly truths which had been more darkly overtur'd under the Law Yea himself pag. 20. of his discourse as we formerly heard conceiveth that by Faith is meant the confessing or acknowledging Christ Jesus to become in the flesh and to be the Son of God and Saviour of the World Which interpretation of the word Faith is as wide from his present sence of it as both the one and the other are from the truth it self 2. Whereas he gives this for the reason of his present sence that Faith from first to last is to steere all affairs under it on mans part c. 1. The great Apostle assigns the great steerage of affairs under the Gospel dispensation unto love Knowledge saith he puffeth up but love edifyeth a 1 Cor. 8. 1 If love edifieth love must steer and order all things under the Gospell-dispensation For all things here ought to be done to edification 1 Cor. 14. 12 26. Rom. 14 19 and 15. 2. c. But 2. Grant we that Faith ought to steer all affairs here on mans part to act all services c. ought it not to have done the like under the Law or did it not the like when children were Circumcised at least when they were circumcised by those who beleeved And may it not do the like now though Children be baptized Of a truth these are very light and loose reasonings to overrule the conscience of a sober man to the disturbance of the affairs of the Gospel and disquietment of the Christian world The premises in the examination of this third argument from first to last duly considered can we think that Mr. A. had so much as any tolerable ground to wind up this his Argument in such a vapour as this Where this qualification Faith therefore is known to be wanting as it is in Infants certainly their Baptism cannot Mr. A. p. 37 be applyed without an apparent breach of the Laws and Rules of this spirituall ministration And thus also I have made good the Premisses of this third Argument The Conclusion will follow of it self without help c. Sect. 155. The Conclusion he speaks of will indeed follow the premisses without help They have been detected of vanitie and are vanished into the air and thither will the conclusion also flee let no man stay it The breach of which he speaks is very probably apparent i. such in appearance unto men who have prejudiced their sight and look thorow such a medium which is ap to cause a mistake Water as both reason and experience informs us will make a straight thing seem crooked if it be looked upon thorow it But though Infant-baptism be an APPARENT breach of the Laws and Rules of Gospell-ministration whilst looked upon by men who have maimed their judicatorie by an unadvised and overhasty Engagement in a by-way yet being beheld and considered by men of chast judgements free understaÌ„dings it is an APPARANT coÌ„formity thereunto Whereas he he saith that he hath made good the premisses of his argumeÌ„t SolomoÌ„ saith that which is crooked cannot be made straight Possibly he hath made them good in his own eyes but the answer given will I trust thorow the blessing of God dissolve the inchantment and make that which he calleth making good appear to him to be nothing else but a washie colour Sect. 156. His fourth and last Argument against Infant-Baptism Mr. A's fourth and last argument p. 38. he bringeth upon the stage of his discourse p. 38. where it acteth its part on this wise If none ought to be baptized but such who appear voluntarily willing to be baptized in obedience utno God then Infants ought not to be baptized But none ought to be baptized but such who appear voluntarily willing to be Baptized in obedience unto God In this Argument we have only a new suite of apparrell but the same body of matter which we met with in the two next preceding Arguments So that the strength and substance of it have been answered already Yet because many of those with whom we have chiefly to do in this writing are not so well able to distinguish between words and substance of matter let us examine the argument in the former words wherein it stands now last recommended to us The whole weight and strength of the Argument depends upon the sence and truth of this Position That none ought to be Baptized but such who appear voluntarily willing to be baptized in obedience to God First for the sence of this Position 1. it is doubtfull whether by voluntarily willing he means that which the terms precisely import viz. such who are freely of their own accord and without much contesting
So that they who truely beleeve in case they delay their Baptism not having been already baptized until afterwards commit an error at least or an oversight herein But there was no such Law imposed by God upon that Faith which was in Christ otherwise he must be supposed to have committed an over-sight in that he offered not himself unto Baptism until many yeares after this Faith had been first resident in him Therefore his Faith and the Faith required of other persons are not essentially or specifically the same Whereas Mr. A. pleads the sameness of expressions or denominations to prove both Faiths to be specifically the same and that to beleeve Jesus Christ to be the Son of God is the Faith required of all other persons to render them capable of Baptism and that this Faith was in Christ I answer That the sameness of name expression or denomination doth not alwaies prove the identity or sameness I mean not the specifical sameness of the things expressed or denominated but sometimes an agreement onely between them in some generical property or consideration Their Faith who have power given them hereupon to become the Sons of God is called a beleeving on his name Joh. 1. 12. and their Faith also to whom Christ refused to commit himself is in like manner termed a beleeving on his name Joh. 2. 23 24. Yet these two Faiths were of very different natures and considerations as sufficiently appears by the two passages compared notwithstanding their consent in name So again their Faith who because the Pharisees did not confess him lest they should be cast out of the synagogue and who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God is termed a beleeving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him i. e. on Christ Joh. 12. 42 43. and their Faith also who beleeve to justification and salvation is expressed after the same manner a beleeving on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3. 16. and elswhere So again that act or series of actings by which the Saints testifie their approbation of the wisdom of God whether in the Gospel or in his providential actings is termed a justification Mat. 11. 19. as well as that act of God by which he absolveth or dischargeth sinners from the guilt of their sins upon their beleeving in Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 1 and in twenty places besides yet are these two acts of very different natures and specifically at least distinct the one from the other It were easie to levy many other instances upon the same account but these are abundantly sufficient to prove that the Faith of Christ beleeving himself to be the Son of God and the Faith of other men beleeving him to be the Son of God also are not by their agreement in name or expression evinced to be Faiths of the same consideration or kind Sect. 185. Suppose it were granted that the belief which was in Christ of his being the Son of God and the belief of the same truth in other persons were of the same nature and kind yet neither will it follow from hence that Christ was baptized upon the account of this Faith because all other persons are For 1. Other persons are not baptized simply directly or immediately upon the account of this Faith but by the interceding of their profession hereof before those who are to baptize them Whereas Christ made no profession unto Jon of that Faith by which he beleeved himself to be the Son of God neither was it proper or comly for him so to doe From whence by the way this saying of Mr. A. a little after therefore may it well be said indeed that Christ received Baptism upon the same terms as others did is manifestly evicted of untruth unless he think to salve the dishonour by those words at least in several respects of which salvage notwithstanding he bereaves himself by these words following and that in conformity to the same standing Law of righteousnesse to wit the Institution of God common to others as well as to him For doubtless there neither was nor is any such standing Law of righteousnesse nor Institution of God according to which any other person of mankind should be baptized upon the account of his Faith without any profession or declaration made of it unto the Baptizer Therefore Christ being baptized upon these terms was not baptized in conformity to the same standing Law of Righteousness or Institution of God common to others but by a Law in this respect appropriate to himself Sect. 186. 2. If John baptized Christ upon the account of his Faith whereby he beleeved himself to be the Son of God then when at first he refused or declined the baptizing of him Mat. 3. 14. either he was ignorant that such a Faith was in Christ or that this Faith was a legitimate ground of baptizing him or else it must be supposed that when â—e refused to baptize him he did against his conscience and contrary to what he knew his duty to be But all these are unworthy of John and not to be conceived of him Therefore hee did not baptize him upon the account of his Faith 3. If he did baptize him upon the account of his Faith then before his baptizing him he must be conceived to have reasoned thus within himself This man or this person surely beleeves himself to be the Son of God and since I have a compent or sufficient ground to conceive this of him viz. that he thus beleeveth therefore I will baptize him But it is loudly dissonant from all that reason saith to imagine that John reasoned after any such manner as this to strengthen his hand to the Baptizing of Christ Therefore he did not baptize him upon the account of his beleeving himself to be the Son of God The major in this argument shineth sufficiently with its own light The minor is evident from hence viz. because John knew as wel before his prohibiting him his baptism or refusing to baptize him that he beleeved himself to be the Son of God as afterwards when he yeelded to baptize him and yet as we see refused to baptize him notwithstanding the knowledg he had of such a belief in him Therefore certainly he did not baptize him upon the account of his Faith Nor did Christ in the interim I mean between John's refusing to baptize him and his admitting him unto his Baptism any wayes inform John that since he beleeved himself to be the Son of God he lawfully might or of duty ought to baptize him So that on which side soever of the businesse we look there is not so much as the least lineament of a face of probability that Christ was baptized upon the account of his beleeving himself to be the Son of God Sect. 187. If it be objected that John when he refused to admit Christ to hiâ— Baptism did as well know that he was the Son of God as that he beleeved himself to be Son of God and yet did not
CATA-BAPTISM OR New Baptism waxing old and ready to vanish away In Two Parts The former Containes LVIII CONSIDERATIONS With their respective Proofs and Consectaries Pregnant for the healing of the common scruples touching the subject of Baptism and manner of Baptizing The latter contains an Answer to a Discours against Infant-Baptism published not long since by W. A. under the Title of Some Baptismall Abuses Briefly Discovered c. In both sundry things not formerly insisted on are Discovered and Discussed By J. G. a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ And were all Baptized into Moses c. 1 Cor. 10. 2. I indeed Baptize you with water Unto Repentance Mat. 3 11. Baptismus est lavacrum regenerationis sed non ita ut regenerati tantùm illo debeant obsignari sed etiam Regenerandi Musc in Mat. 22. 41. 42. Baptizantur Infantes in futuram poenitentiam fidem Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 16. §. 20. London Printed for H Cripps and L. Lloyd and are to be sold at their shops neer the Castle in Cornhil and in Popes-head-Alley 1655. To the Sons and Daughters of God walking in the Way best known by the Name of Ana-Baptism growth in Grace and the knowledg of Jesus Christ our Lord. BELOVED I speak it as in the §. 1. sight of God I am in a great straite how to temper my speech for your best advantage in this my solemn address unto you Very loth I am on the one hand to deal so unfaithfully or un-Christianly with you as upon such an opportunity not to speak the truth unto you in such things wherein I either certainly know or else have weighty grounds to judge that it most neerly concerns you to know and to consider it and on the other hand very unwilling I am also to speak any thing for which either weakness or uncharitableness it self shall be able to judg me your enemie I well know it becomes me not to say of you as Nabal'â— servant spake of his Master He is so wicked that a man cannot speak to him a 1 Sam. 25. 17. meaning without offending or provoking him yet my Experience importunes me to speak this that some of you yea some of those whom I have cause to judge the strongest amongst you are so weak that words as innocent as inoffensive as the greatest Christian tenderness or caution can lightly indite have notwithstanding been a burthen and offence unto them I could readily instance in sundry particulars as well of words phrases and passages of this harmless import as of persons among you who nevertheless have turned their innocencie into guilt and made themselves agrieved at them but that I fear lest this also should be an offence unto you I call God for a record upon my soul that I have §. 2. not the least touch of any malignancie or frowardness of spirit against any of you but can freely serve the meanest of you in love yea and stoop to loose the latcher of his shoe who is the most jealous amongst you of the candor and simplicitie of my heart towards you Yea I have upon occasion and this more than once given a very passeable account of my unpartiall respects unto all of your way and practise worthy the repute of godliness by girding my self and ministring with all my might to some particulars of you But I know how hard a thing it is not to be offended with him that shall touch the Apple of a mans eye or that shall attempt to change the glorie and height of his confidence into the shame of guilt and errour And the truth is that you have much obstructed the way of your return and regainment unto the Truth by an importune and undue magnifying of your errour If you could have been content in estimating your new Baptism and the want or non-practise of it in others to contain you selves within those bounds of Reason and Truth which the Holy Ghost prescrib's in a like or rather indeed in a far better case saying That Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the Commandments of God a 1 Cor. 7. 19. and again In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but Faith which worketh by Love b Gal. 5. 6. and yet again If the circumcision keep the righteousness of the Law his un-circumcision shal be counted for circumcision c Rom. 2. 26. See these passages argued and opened Water-Dipping p. 78. 79. 80. c. If I say you could look upon your Baptism as availing you nothing without Faith working by Love and keeping the Commandments of God and again upon the want of your Baptism as no wayes prejudiciall unto those who under another Baptism beleeve unfeignedly in Jesus Christ and walk holily and humbly with their God this would be an effectual door of hope opened unto me that you were yet within call and might be reduced and brought back again in your judgments unto the truth as some of the best of those who through humain frailty and immaturity of consideration had embraced your way from time to time have done What a man moderately or soberly valueth may §. 3. be purchased of him at a reasonable rate But whilst God's Nothing yea that which is less then that Nothing of his we now speak of is your All things whilst you judge your tything of mint anise and cummin or rather indeed of nettles thistles and unprofitable weeds to be the practise of mercy and judgement and the weighty things of the Law your reconcilement with the Truth though advancing in the front of my desires yet keeps in the reer of my expectations For when a man prizeth any thing he possesseth at an unreasonable rate he is so much the more like to keep possession of it still unless haply the thief digs through the house and violently takes it away Some of your Churches esteem all others no better then Heathen and Publicans who refuse to cast in their lot with them in their venturous practise of new Baptism a Ad forum fâ—cto concurcu clamorem tollunt omnes non baptizatos jubent interfici tanquam paganos impios Joh. Sleidan de Anabaptistis Comment lib. 10. refusing all Christian communion with them though otherwise they be the glory of Christ and of the Gospel when as many of themselves are the shame and reproach of both And if my intelligence faileth me not other of your Churches are lifting up their hearts to a like zealous exaltation of your way as by proscribing or evacuating all the Faith Love Zeal Holiness Meekness Humility Wisdom and Knowledge shining in the Christian world which shall not approve themselves unto you by falling down before the golden image which you have set up But in this your humour of making such sacred § 4. treasure of your new Baptism you declare your selves to be the true heirs and successors of those in all ages who
thing is sufficient to satisfie some in some cases 16â— 135. A cause is not made good by aâ—swering an objection 168. 136. Sonship unto God how accrueth unto Children 169. 137. Mr. Tombs â—nd Mr. Fisher yea the Rebaptized Churches themselves at ods in points neerly relating to the question of Rebaptizing 170. 138. How all children are capable of Baptism and how nâ—t 171. 139. Baptism why described or termed the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins 176. 140. Baptism whether administrable unto Repentants only 177. 141. Baptism the more for the good of man because Infants capable of it 178. 142. Baptism how beneficial without faith 179. 143. What it must be that qualifieth for it 180. 144. What love of God and in what respect immediately qualifieth for Baptism 181. 145. The faith which was in Christ was not of the same kind with the faith of other beleevers 183 184. 146. The sameness of expressions doth not prove the sameness of thinâ—s 184. 147. Whether Christ was baptized upon the account of his beleeving him self to be the Sâ—n of God 185. 186. 148. That faith qualifieth for Baptism as it is dâ—clarative of spiritual Sonship § 188 189. and this by the will or appointment of God 190. 149. Christ did not make a dedication of himself to the seâ—vice of the Gospel by the solemnity of Baptism 191. 150. The reason of Christs choice of the season wherein he was baptized in reference hereunto 193. 151. Persons may be baptized in conformity to a Law of righteousness and yet not to that Law by which Christ was baptizâ—d 192. 152. Christ was not baptized in conformity to the common Law of Baptism 194. CONSIDERATION I. Câ—lourable Arguments and Grounds levied and insisted The first head of Consideraâ—ionâ— being of â— more geneâ—al import â—elatâ—ng unto â—her case Controversieâ— as wel as those about Ordinances or Baptism upon for thâ— defence of Error are more likely to take with ordinary capacities and apprâ—hensions yea and with those that are somewhat pregnant and ripe espâ—cially at first and fâ—r a season then those which are sound and substantial and dâ—monstrative of truth Proof Error befriendeth mens corruptions comporteth with their lusts justifieth them in their carnal and sensual ends and consequently in such ways and practises also which are proper and likely to advance and procure them Upon this account it cometh to pass that men and women more generally having several corruptions to gratifie worldly and carnal ends to pursue c. have a secret and inward proneness and propension unto Error as that which under the name of Truth pretends to bless them in their way Now when a person man or woman secretly wisheth that such a Doctrine or Opinion were a Truth or may be sound to be a Truth a very slender and weak argument in favor of it easily fills and satisfies them and disposeth them to cry out with the High Priest What have we any more need of wiâ—nesses Mat. 26. 65. especially when their judgments and understandings are but ordinary and weak Yea men and women for the maintaining of themselves in peace in ways and practises that are corrupt and sinful are of a listening and harâ—ening disposition as well after Teachers as grounds and arguments which will strengthen comfort and support them therein and when they meet with either they rejoyce over them as if they had found great spoils Whereas the Truth is a most severe enemy to all worldly lusts to all sinister and corrupt ends of men and consequently to all such methods ways and practises which are calculated for the compassing and obtaining of them giving men no countenance rest or peace in such ways From whence it comes to pass neither can it in reason be otherwise that persons generally are possest with a marvellous aversness and frowardness of spirit against the Truth extreamly unwilling that such an opinion should be owned or acknowledged for a Truth especially by them the face whereof is set and which peremptorily threateneth to separate between them and their beloved lusts or otherwise to shame trouble and torment them in the fulfilling of them By means of this great aversness in men to be convinced of the Truth it cometh to pass as frequent expeperience teacheth that Arguments and Grounds of greatest evidence and power for the eviction manifestation and demonstration of the Truth are but as the shadows of the mountains unto them clouds without water and words without weight And so the Truth it self though mightily evinced is by them respected under the reproachful notion and name of Error Both these particulars as well the incredible aversness in men to admit of Truth though coming to them in the clearest light of Evidence and Demonstration as that strange propenseness towards the entertainment of Error lately mentioned are plainly asserted by the Apostle 2 Tim. 4. 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts will heap to themselves Teachers having itching ears The metaphor of itching ears implies 1. The unclean distempers in the hearts and spirits of men as the itch properly so called is to the flesh or bodies of men 2. It implies also the great and impatient desire and propenseness which is in such persons to be spiritually scratched i. e. to have these distempers of theirs only so touched and handled by Teachers that it may be matter of pleasure and gratification unto them as indeed it is when such things are delivered in the Name of God and as from the Scriptures whereby they are really comforted and seemingly and to their own sence justified in their evil ways Consectary If colourable and light arguments levied and managed for the defence of Error be more apt to take and satisfie ordinary capacities and persons unskilful in the Word of Truth then arguments of greatest pregnancy and weight raised and held forth for the vindication of the Truth then need it not seem strange unto any man that such multitudes should be ensnared and carried away in their judgments as dayly are unto the opinion which fighteth against the Baptizing of Children with such arguments which have little weight worth or substance in them CONSIDERATION II. GOd requireth and expecteth from men as well to beleeve as to practise not only upon Grounds plain and near at hand such I mean which as it were at the first sight and by plainness and palpableness of inference enforce either the truth to be beleeved or the thing to be practised but even upon grounds somewhat more remote yea and secret insinuations and from which neither can the truth that is to be beleeved nor the action or thing that is to be practised be evinced or inferred but by a diligent exercise and close engagement of the reason judgment and understanding of a man Proâ—f When God spake thus unto Moses out of the midst of the burning bush I am the God of Abraham the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob Exod. 3. 6. he expected that men should beleeve the Resurrection of the dead upon the account of these words and practise accordingly This is evident from that of our Saviour to the Sadduces Mat. 22. 31 32. But as touching the Resurrection of the dead have ye not read what was spoken unto you by God saying I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac c. clearly implying that these men and others stood bound in duty and in conscience towards God upon the account and ground of such words as these to have beleeved the rising again of the dead and that it was their sin having such a ground of proof for it not to beleeve it Yet could not the truth be gathered or inferred from the said words but by a diligent close and intense working of the rationative faculty and understanding as is evident No nor can our Saviours own demonstration it self in the place mentâ—oned of the said truths from the words be apprehended without some considerable engagement of the mâ—nd and intellectual powers of the Soul So likewise he expected that from the example of David and his men eating the Shew-bread the Pharisees should have understood and known that it was lawful for men to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day Mat. 12. 23. yet the argument here was not of so ready a perception The Apostle saith that God hath exhibited faith or given assurance unto all men that he will judg the World in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained meaning Christ in that he hath raised him from the dead Acts 17. 31. Yet it is a matter of no obvious conception how to conceive or make the act of God in raising Christ from the dead a sufficient ground of assurance that he will judg the World in righteousness by him So when Moses avenged the Israelit by smiting and slaying the Egyptian who oppressed him he supposed and expected that hâ—s Brethren would have understood and beleeved thâ—t God by his hand would deliver them Acts 24. 25. His supposition and expectation in this kind cannot be judged unreasonable nay certainly they were regular and agreeable to the mind of God himself Yet was this fact of Moses in vindicating the Israelite and smiting the Egyptian no such pregnant argument at the first sight no ground of a ready or easie conviction unto his Brethren the Israelites that God by his hand intended to effect that great Deliverance from the Egyptian Bondage which afterwards we know he did effect by him Nor did his Brethren the Israelites no not so much as any one of them as far as can be gathered from the Scriptures and as is most probable apprehend or understand any such thing thereby The Apostle Paul expected that the Corinthians and so other Christians should hear know and understand that it was their duty to afford competent maintenance to the Ministers of the God from and by means of this Mosaical Law Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn 1 Cor. 9. 8 9 10. See also 1 Tim. 5. 18. And yet this Law was nothing so obvious and clear a ground for such a duty and practise as the Command of God for the Circumcising Children under the Law is for their Baptizing the Commandment of Baptism or the change of the Ordinance only supposed under the Gospel Consectary If God requireth of men as well to beleeve as practise not onely upon plain and express grounds such as from whence that which ought to be beleeved or practised may readily and without the mediation of a Consequence be inferred but upon grounds also more remote and from which the thing to be beleeved or practised cannot be inferred or drawn but by force of argument by a narrow and through debate of the understanding then it roundly followeth that Infant-Baptism may be a duty and necessary to be practised though the grounds evincing it should lie much deepeâ— in the Scriptures then now they do and not be so obvious to persons uncapable whether through passion and shortness of spirit or through weakness or scantness of understanding of a narrow sifting of and through searching into matters of a more difficult consideration CONSIDERATION III. MAny practises may be lawful yea and necessary which are neither enjoyned by any expressness of â—recept nor yet countenanced or warranted by any expressness of Example in the Scriptures Proof 1. By expressness of Precept I mean a Precept or Command of such a Tenor of words which doth plainly and according to the literal and grammatical sence of the words and without the mediation of any inference or deduction require such or such a practice So likewise by expressness of example I mean an action or practise every ways or in all circumstances semblable unto or parallel with the practise in question As for example Children are commanded to reverence or honor their Parents by expresness of precept in the fift Commandment but they are not upon the like terms I mean by expresness of precept here commanded to relieve them when they stand in need with their substance though it be granted that this may reasonably be understood to be here commanded also because to regard those that are in want so as to relieve and support them is a casting of honor or respect upon them See 1 Tim. 5. 3. 17. Judg. 9. 9. 2. By necessary I mean that which ought to be done or which a person stands bound in duty and conscience unto God to do These terms explained by the way we proceed to the proof of the consideration It was lawful yea and in a sence necessary that the Disciples passing through the corn fields though on the Sabbath day should being an hungry pluck ears of corn Mat. 12. 1 2 c. and eat otherwise our Saviour would not have justified them in this action against those which reproved them But certain it is that the Disciples were not able to produce either expresness of precept or example from the Scripture whereby to warrant such an action Nor doth our Saviour himself produce either the one or the other upon this account So also it was necessary and matter of duty from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel by men for those that were instructed and taught therein to supply their Teachers with things necessary and to make them partakers of all their goods * Gal 6. 6. 1 Cor. 9. 14 c. Even so saith the Apostle hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel yet had they no expressness either of precâ—pt or example to engage them hereunto until afterwards as viz. when this Apostle declared the Ordinance or Institution of God in this behalf in the words now cited and elsewhere Let him that is taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things Again when Davâ—d and they that were with him
Saviour judged most pertinent and pregnant for the conviction of their error Mat. 22. 31 32. Suppose the Scripture had only said as it doth Mat. 1. 2. Abraham begat Isaac and had no where said that Isaac was Abrahams son yet he that should deny this should deny the Authority or Veracity of the Scriptures as well or as much as he that should deny the other Consectary If to reject solid and clear consequences or deductions from the Scriptures be to reject the Scriptures themselves then may they who oppose Infant-Baptism because it is not in so many words taught or asserted in the Scriptures as much oppose and deny the Authority of the Scriptures as they should do in case it were in so many words here asserted and they oppose it notwithstanding CONSIDERATION XI IF any man should levy three seven ten or any number of Arguments to prove the truth of a Doctrine or Tenent and only â—nâ— of them be found solid and unanswerable all the rest upon consideration or debate proving fallacious and empty the truth of this Doctrine ought to be acknowledged upon the account of this one Argument as well as it ought to have been in case all the Arguments besides had been of equal weight and conviction with it Proof The reason hereof is plain viz. because an error or a false doctrine hath no more communion with any Truth then light hath with darkness nor can it be justified or supported by it No Truth hath any right hand of fellowship to give but unto its fellow-Truths only Therefore what Opinion or Doctrine soever hath so much as one Argument made of clear and shining Truth to stand by it is hereby sufficiently justified Notwithstanding variety of Arguments for the eviction of one and the same Truth is not superfluous because the capacities and apprehensions of men being various that Argument which corresponds with one mans apprehension and satisfieth him may be less comporting with the capacity of another and so not so convincing unto him though both may be in themselves of equal pregnancy and strength Consectary If any one Argument solid and clear be sufficient to establish an Opinion or Doctrine though many others insisted on to the same purpose should be detected of insufficiency in this kind then may the Cause of Infant-Baptism stand honorable and just although it should be granted that many Arguments which have appeared in the defence of it have been disabled or taken tardy by her Opposers CONSIDERATION XII WHen a mans Soul hath prospered and is yet prospering in such a way of worshipping and serving God wherein by his Providence he hath been educated and in which he hath walked from his youth it is no wisdom for him to forsake it unless it be upon the clearest conviction that is lightly imaginable that God is displeased with this way or that he better approveth another contrary to it Proof The Sun is not more visible by his own light then the truth of this Consideration discernable by the very substance of the matter and purport of it For when God hath graciously and savingly discovered himself to a person walking in such or such a way of serving him and is still revealing himself in this way further and further from day to day unto him this cannot reasonably be interpreted but as a Signal Confirmation from God of his approbation of this way The Apostle Paul to reduce the judgments and affections of the Galathians to the way of the Gospel from which they began to decline remembers them of those spiritual vouchsafements which they had received from God whilest they walked in this way * Gal 3. 2 5. hereby clearly implying that having experienced the rich Grace and Bounty of God in this way â— 4. 14. 15. they acted contrary to all principles of reason and sound understanding in suffering themselves upon such slender grounds as they were to be turned out of it especially to walk in such a way wherein they could have no assurance of being alike graciously entreated by God but had rather indeed cause to fear his high displeasure So the Holy Ghost from place to place insisteth upon it as an aggravation of the sinful folly of men to forsake the worship and service of God of whose Goodness either themselves or their Fathers had had experience and to fall to the worship of a strange God whom neither of them had known yea and frequently mentioneth the ignorance or non-knowledg in men of that God whose service they are about or in danger to addict themselves unto as a grand disswasive from such a practise See â—eut 2. 6 13. And Jer. 19. 4. Because they have forsaken me and have estranged this place and have burnt incense in it unto other Gods whom neither they nor their Fathers have known nor the Kings of Israel c. Consectary If it be repugnant to the principles not only of sound reason but of Christian prudence also to relinquish such a way wherein a man for a long time together hath walked with God to the great enriching of his Soul with sound comfort and peace to walk in a new and strange path wherein he is ignorant whether he shall find the presence of God with him or no if I say it be folly to relinquish a way of a long experienced peace otherwise then upon the clearest and highest conviction that the way for which he exchangeth is a way wherein his Soul shall prosper more then in the former then are such persons children of great folly and inconsiderateness who having for many years together thriven spiritually and enjoyed much of God under their Infant-Baptism shall notwithstanding abandon this Baptism to take up another which is at least experimentally unknown to them and whereof no not so much as in point of lawfulness the greatest Patrons of it are not able to give any competent account to intelligent and considering men being otherwise also a way which in all places where it hath been occupied hath been obstructive to the course of the Gospel * See Epist Dedic sec 11 and wherein more shipwracks then returns as far as experience can judg have been found CONSIDERATION XIII THey who make such or such a thing necessary or matter of The second head of Considerations which concern Oâ—dinances Institution in general and are applicable unto Baptism conscience in or about an Institution or the Administration hereof which God nâ—ither by any general Law nor special hath determined make themselves Lords over the consciences of men and assume the Interest of God himself Proof The truth of this Consideration also lieth neer at hand For it is a royalty appropriately belonging to the Throne of Divine Majesty to impose Laws upon the judgments and consciences of men And they who attempt to bring men into bondage where God hath left them free pretend to more either wisdom or righteousness or both then they are willing to allow unto God Consectary
1. 6. c. 3. 1. c. in all which places to omit others without number of like import the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precisely and determinately signifieth man or a person of the male sex only Therefore if Mr D. will prove that the said word includes both sexes in the Text now under consideration he must produce some better argument then the grammatical signification of the word at large Otherwise he might with as much reason argue and undertake to prove that because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pneuma signifies both the wind and the spirit that therefore it signifies both in all passages where it is used and so raise a storm of blasphemy horrid iâ— one respect and ridiculous in another in twenty places Besides the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself relating in construction to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not of the epicoene much less foeminine gender but of the masculine determinately plainly sheweth that the Apostle did not intend the female part of the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the masculine only Notwithstanding it is not to be denyed but that the precept or direction in hand doth relate unto and concern women also though not by force or any express signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet by virtue of that capacity which is in this sex as well as in men to perform the terms here required of men in order to their partaking of the Ordinance here spoken of So that the Conclusion last specified is unquestionable being indeed nothing in substance but that common Maxim in Reason A quateâ—us ad de omni efficax est illatio Consectary If the same right or title which accrueth unto any person upon a special consideration accrueth unto every person without exception in whom the same consideration is found it undeniably followeth that if persons of riper years have a right unto Baptism by vertue of that interest of grace or fâ—vor in God which they obtain by repenting or beleeving and declare to have obtained by the profession of this their repentance or beleeving which we have at large evinced for truth in the subsequent Answer that then I say Children and Infants have the same right also I mean unto Baptism in case it be proved and found true that they have the like interest in the said grace and favor of God CONSIDERATION XIX JT is not necessarily required either in Signs Seals or Sacraments that they should correspond in any natural similitude or likeness with the things signified sealed or Sacra 〈…〉 zâ—d by them Proof First not to speak of natural Signs between which and the things signified by them nothing is more evident then that no such similitude intercedes as between smoke and fire between a fiery red morning and a rainy day c. in Instituted Signs an agreement either in quality or in form between them and the things signified by them is not at all at least in many cases regarded or looked after A bush hanging down from a sign-post is a sign of wine to be sold in the house but what similitude or agreement is there between the bush and the wine A garment of divers colours was a sign of a Kings daughter in her virginity 2 Sam. 13. 18. What similitude was there between the sign and thing signified here It were easie to instance many particulars of like kind Secondly It is yet much more evident that between Seals and the things sealed or confirmed by them there is no need of any such correspondency or agreement as that of which we now speak The impression made upon wax affixed to an Indenture or Conveyance may be of any figure or form what ever the conâ—ents of the said Indenture or Conveyance may be The great broad Seal of a State or Prince is one and the same notwithstanding the great variety of Commissions Grants or matters sealed and confirmed by it In which respect there cannot be a similitude or resemblance between this Seal and all the respective particular things that are sealed or ratified by it Thirdly and lastly Concerning Sacraments or such sacred Ordinances whereby God is pleased to signifie and confirm matters of Grace of one kind or other unto us neither is it necessary that these should be any pictures pourtraictures or resemblances of the particular things signified or confirmed by them The reason is because God in the appointment and vouchsafement of them graciously intending to apply himself unto men in such ways and methods which were familiarly practised amongst themselves was no wayes necessitated or occasioned to make any other calculation of them then only to answer the manner of men in the calculation institution or appointment of their signeâ— and seals wherein as was lately said they are not wonâ— much to mind similitudes or correspondencies Indeed in Types or Ordinances meerly Typpical Analogy or configuration is requisite and proper but in Ordinances properly and purely Sacramental it is not necessary although it be not denyed but that in some cases and in some of these Ordinances it may be expedient and hath been accordingly observed by God But that sundry Sacramentals have been appointed by God without any Typpical resemblance in them of the things signified by them or intended to be effected by them might be proved from the Scriptures The Tree in the midst of Paradise Sacramentally signified and confirmed unto Adam that whilest he obeyed God he should live and in this respect haply was called The Tree of Life Gen. 2. 9. yet was there no similitude or resemblance between this Tree and the Life Sacramentally signified and sealed by it There is a like consideration of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and so of the Rainbow and again of Moses his smiting the Waters of the Sea with the rod in his hand of the Priests compassing the City of Jerichâ— seven dayes together with blowing Trumpets made of Rames horns to omit many others Consectary If it be not necessarily required either in signs seals or Sacraments that they should correspond in any similitude or likeness with the things signified sealed or Sacramentized by them then may Baptism by sprinkling or any other kind of ablution as well as by dipping be a signe seal and Sacrament of a being buried with Christ in or into his death However CONSIDERATION XX. VVHat is not expresly mentioned in an Institution nor particularly commanded in or about the administration of it is not of the nature or essence of the Institution but the administration hereof may be lawfully and regularly made without it Proof The reason of what is layd down and â—endered in this Consideration is because the Law or nature of an Institution which in all things essentially requisite to the due Performance or administration of it dependeth upon the sole Will and pleasure of God requireth that this his Will and pleasure thus far I mean in all particulars essential to it
by sprinkling or pouring water upon it is a nullity or that a person is never the more consecrated unto this service for his being sprinkled or washed with water in his infancy and that in this respect a person comming to maturity of years and beleeving ought to be consecrated to this service as if nothing at all had been done unto him upon this account formerly thus I say to pretend or plead is to dictate a mans own notion and conceit not to speak the words of sobernesse and truth or any thing that can be proved from the Scriptures These no where determine Inâ—ant-Baptism to be a nullity neither in respect of any incapacity in the person baptized nor in respect of any mis-application of the element whether applied by sprinkling or affusion Yea it hath been proved elsewhere I suppose above all reasonable contradiction that infant-baptism whether administred by sprinkling or affusion although for my part I never knew any administration in this kind made by sprinkling is for all Baptismal ends and purposes as efficacious and valid as the baptizing of men after what manner soever b See Water-dipping c. Consideration 16. p. 24. 25. c. Consectary If the practise of Re-baptizing cannot be justified by the word of God then must it needs be either an humane device or delusion of Sathan CONSIDERATION XLXIX. THe custome or practise of adult Baptism or of deferring Baptism unto maturity of years amongst those who were born in the Church and amongst whom Baptism was used as in the case of Constantine Austin and some others mentioned in Church History first entred into the Church by an unhallowed dore and was entertained upon unwarrantable and Popish grounds Proof The truth of this Assertion sufficiently appeareth by the light of the records of Antiquity So that whereas some of the Anti-pedo-Baptistical party ridiculously and contrary to the main current of all sound Ecclesiastical Records of primitive date bear poor ignorant people in hand that I know not who what or which Pope Innocent should be the first who commanded children to be baptized the truth is that they were Popish grounds haply in conjunction with some others no whit better which made the first breach upon infant-Baptism formerly practised and this generally in the Christian Churches as is elsewhere proved and prevailed with some to put off the baptâ—ing of their children and with others their own baptizing untill maturity of years yea with some untill the apprehended approaches of death Much might be gathered and cited from the writings of the fathers upon this account Tertullian seems to have been the first who perswaded Christians to delay Baptism especially the Baptism of their children until afterwards a Itaque pro cujusque conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Bapâ—ismi utilior est praecipue tamen circà parvulos Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissi nem peccatorum Tertul. de Baptismo c. 18. which by the way clearly proveth that Infant-Baptisme was ordinarily practised in his times But the grounds upon which he perswadeth to such a practise are very sandie and loose and the principal of them viz. that Remission of sins whereof children being innocent have no need is obtained by or at least conferred in Baptism is at this day by those at least the generality of those who are reputed Orthodox amongst Protestants adjudged Popish and erroneous and besides seemeth to suppose that there is no other end of Baptism but onely the obtaining forgivenesse of sins or that Baptisme ought not to be administred except onely in such cases where all the ends thereof may presently be obtained Besides this motion of Tertullian for the delay of Baptism was in all likelihood much promoted amongst Christians by means of some impressions which the consciences of some had taken of the Novatian error fearing lest in case of sin after Baptism they should be uncapable of Repentance and consequently of salvation it self The opinion also which many Professors about these times had drank in that all their sins should be remitted in their Baptism in conjunction with a corrupt desire to injoy the pleasures of sin as long as they could without danger as they supposed together with a perswasion that they were onely once to be baptized contributed much towards the entertainment of Tertullians Doctrinal advice with many as may be plainly gathered from several passages in Basil's Exhortation unto Baptism But whatsoever his grounds or reasons were for this his Doctrine of Baptismal delaies the pious and learned fathers after him especially Basil and Nazienzen adjudged them altogether insufficient zealously exhorting to a contrary practise Hast thou an Infant saith Nazienzen let nâ—t impiety be gratified with an opportunity let it be sanctified from its infancy let it be consecrated unto the Holy Ghost from the very first sprouting of the nails of it a Infans tibi est ne occasionem improbitas arripipiat ab infantia sanctificetur ab ipsis unguiculis spiritui consecretur Greg. Nazienzen Orat. 40. in Sanctum Baptisma with much more to the same purpose And Basil expresly taught his hearers that the whole life of a man was a time for Baptism b Baptismi verò tempus vita horinis tota Basil in Exhort ad Baptismum meaning that it might be administred and received at any time from the womb to the grave Yea Tertullian himself clearly approveth of the Baptizing of infants in case of necessity Consectary If the custome of adult Baptism where children were born of Christian Parents was first brought into the Church and entertained upon Popish and unwarrantable grounds then was it not practised by Christ or his Apostles but is rather Popish and Anti Christian CONSIDERATION L. THat Generation of men best known amongst us by the name of ANA-BAPTISTS have alwaies been injurious to the Gospel and obstructive to the course and free passage of it in the world Proof Peter speaking of Christ saith To him give all the Prophets witnesse Act. 10. 43. As all the ancient Prophets give testimony unto Christ so do all or very many of the latter Prophets I mean those worthy instruments by whom God hath inlightned the world in and since the Reformation began by Luther given testimony against that generation of men we speak of as men by whose unworthinesse in several kinds the interest of the Gospel hath deeply suffered in the world The course of the Gospel saith Scultetus Decad. 1. Anno. 1525. was this year hindered and obstructed in Zuitzerland and Moravia by the Anabaptistical sect Elsewhere speaking of the Church of Saintgal he saith it was variously exercised or disturbed by the Anabaptists Elsewhere he writes that these Anabaptists were extreamly troublesome to the Christians in the two Cities of Ulme and Augusta or Auspurg in the lower Suevia Again writing of the year 1527. he saith this year the Anabaptistical and Sacramentary wars or quarrels were very hot to thâ— great damage
the Apostle Peter Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we And what other benefit or accommodation the Lord Christ should intend to these children or conferre by laying hands on them but the gift of the Holy Ghost when Mr. A. demonstrates unto me I shall demur upon the place Sect. 26. 6. It is a law or rule established by God himself repeated several times both in the Old and in the New Testament and that for the deciding of cases and questions of far greater moment then whether children were baptized in the Apostles daies I mean cases and questions about life and death that In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established a 2 Cor. 13. 1 Our Saviour more briefly reports it thus speaking to the Jews It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true b Joh. 8. 17. If Mr. A. and men of his judgment wil be content to be over-ruled by this law of God and this so interpreted and understood as the Scripture it self useth and interpreteth it the Question depending about childrens Baptism in the Apostles days will soon receive a clear issue For who from amongst men can lightly be found a more competent witnesse in the case then that great and famous light of the Christian world in his daies whose testimony in matters of fact was never to my knowledge or hearing so much as questioned or suspected Augustine I mean In one place speaking of childrens Baptism he saith If any man ask for divine authority in the matter although we most rightly beleeve that what the universal Church holdeth and was not instituted by councels but hath been ever held was not delivered but BY APOSTOLICAL AVTHORITY yet we may truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Baptism performeth to Infants by Circumcision which the former pâ—ople did râ—câ—ive a Et si quisquam in hac re authoritatem divinam quaerat quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec concilijs institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditam rectissimè creditur tamen veraciter continere potiùs conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulâ—s baptismi Sacramâ—ntum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit c. Aug. de Bapt. Contà Donatistas l. 4. c. 23. In another place reporting what Cyprian who lived within an 150 yeers after John with many other learned men Bishops and Pastors of Churches in his time had resolved concerning the lawfulnesse of baptizing children at any time as well before the eight day as on it which was the doubt of one Fidus a Bishop he affirmeth that Cyprian with his fellows did not in this their resolution of the case make any new decree but kept to the most constant or setled beleef of the Church b Beatus quidem Cyprianus non aliquod decretum câ—ndâ—ns novum sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans ad corrigendum eos qui putabant ante Octavum diem nativitatis non esse parvulum baptizandum non carnem sed animamidixit non esse perdendam et mox natum ritè baptizari posse cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hieronymum A little after he calls the practise of baptizing infants Ecclesia fundatissimum morem the best or most grounded practice of the Church This passage of Cyprian is by this famous Author reported c Quid senserit Sanctus Cyprianus de baptismo parvulorum imò quid semper Ecclesiam sensisse monstraverit paululum accipite in several places of his works De verbis Apostoli Serm. 14. Contrà duas Epist Pelag. ad Bonifacium lib. 4. c. 8. Item Epist 222. ad Marcellinum Immediately before the former of these quotations he affirms that Cyprian in that passage did not so much declare what his own judgement was about the baptizing of children as what the Church had ALWAIES held concerning iâ— Elsewhere speaking of Infant-baptism he saith that the Authority of the Church maintaineth or possesseth it the well-grounded Canon or rule of truth I suppose he means the Scripture obtaineth or evinceth it whoever runs at Tilt against this strength against this impregnable or inexpugnable wall or fortresse will be broken to pieces by it a Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ecclesiae hoc fundatus veritatis obtinet canâ—n contrà hoc robur contrà hunc inexpugnabilem muruÌ„ quisquis arietat ipse confringetur Aug. de verbis Apost Serm. 14. In another place he saith that by the ancient Canonical and most grounded usage of the Church children baptized are called faithful or beleevers b Nam ideò consuetudine Ecclesiae antiquâ canonicâ fundatissimâ parvuli baptizati fideles vocantur ibid. In another that that which made him solicitous was not the opinion it self meaning of Infant-baptism which had been now long since founded by the highest authority that is in the Catholick or universal Church but the disputes of some men which attempt the publick and the subversion of the minds of many c Solicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicà summâ authoritate fundata sed disputationes quorundam quae modo crebrescere multorum animos evertere moliuntur ibid. Yet again he saith that the custome of the Church in baptizing little ones is not at any hand to be despised nor yet were it at all to be beleeved or received were it not an Apostolical tradition d Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizâ—ndis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est neque ullo modo superflua deputanda nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 10. c 23. i. e. a practise handed over by and from the Apostles to the succeeding Church of Christ To adde onely this one testimony more from this worthy friend and Factor of Christ Jesus in his daies Let no man saith he buzze abroad any strange Doctrines This of Infant-Baptism the Church alwaies had alwaies held this it received from the Faith of its Ancestors this will it with perseverance keep unto the end e Nemo susurret Doctrinas alienas Hoc Ecclefia semper habuit semper tenuit hoc à majorum fide percepit hoc usque in finem persevâ—ranter custodit Aug. de verbis Apost Serm. 10. Much more might be cited from this worthy Author for the attestation of this truth that Infant-Baptism was practised in the Apostles times and from thence continued in Christian Churches until his daies Nor is it to be beleeved the unparallel'd integrity ingenuity wisdom and gravity of the man considered that ever he would have opened his mouth or lift up his pen to assert such a thing had he not known the truth thereof very perfectly yea and been able to give a satisfactory and demonstrative account of what he
possibility and this not degreed neither like the other that the Authors mentioned should be mistaken in the grounds upon which they build their testimony of the practice of Infant-Baptism by the Apostles it is very importune dis-ingenuous and hardly consistent with a good conscience for any man to reject their testimony in the case And if Mr. A. himself and three or four more of his judgement of equall repute with him for sober and conscientious men although I beleeve his new opinion and way hath not at all tenerized or bettered his conscience nor any other mans should report any thing upon grounds as pregnant with evidence of truth unto them as the grounds upon which the fathers testified the baptizing of children by the Apostles were unto them I should without much scruple beleeve him yea though the thing reported by him in this case should in it self be much more incredible then that children were baptized by the Apostles Nor is it at any hand to be beleeved or thought that the said Authors their gravity wisdom interest and authority in the Churches of Christ in their daies over and besides the most approved goodnesse of their Consciences considered would upon conjectural or light grounds or such which had been liable to dis-proof asserted any such matter of fact as that Yea that which is more then this their adversaries themselves I mean the Pelagians who were great opposers of Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers about his daies men of great learning subtile diligent and studious in their way against whose Doctrine and Tenents the baptizing of infants was one of the grand arguments or objections urged and insisted on by the Orthodox Fathers yet never denied or so much as questioned the truth of what they constantly affirmed touching the descent of Infant-Baptism from the Apostles To pretend that the writings at this day passing under the names of the fore-named fathers may for ought we know be spurious and counterfeit or else depraved and corrupted and that upon this account the authority of any thing found in them is not much to be valued thus I say to pretend argue and conclude is worthy onely such men whose consciences will serve them rather to say any thing and to seek out any frivolous or puted evasion then to yeeld to the truth However if Mr. A. can offer any thing for proof of the negative that children were not baptized by the Apostles which in the eye of unpartial and considering men doth any waies to any proportion or degree ballance the weight of what hath been alledged from many competent witnesses for the affirmative I shall let go the hold I have taken on the credit of their testimony in the case which untill then I suppose himself will judge meet and Christian that I should keep In the mean time the premises together with what we shall upon somewhat a like account immediately subjoin considered I do with very little lesse confidence beleeve that Children were baptized in the Apostles daies then I beleeve the Sunne to be up at noon day Therefore Sect. 28. 7. It is very considerable also for the discovery of the truth in the businesse in hand that the times when and for the most part the occasions whereupon those additional ceremonies which for a long time accompanied the baptizing of infants as God-fathers and God-mothers so called with some others had their first rise and original may from current histories be shewed and found Whereas no history whatsoever undertaketh to report when the baptizing of infants came first into the Church which is no light argument or proof that this practise was more ancient then any Ecclesiastical history now extant and consequently as ancient as the times of the Apostles For it is altogether improbable that any History should take notice of appurtenances or additional circumstances and record the time of their introduction into the Church and not withall take and give knowledge of the time when the fundamental and main practice it self first began in case the beginning hereof had fallen within that compasse of time which the said History traverseth What Mr. Tombs impertinently attempteth from the councel of Carthage hath been sufficiently staved and beaten back by others a Dr. Hosms Animad upon Mr. Tombs his Exercit. p. 167 168. c. Mr. Marshal Defence of Infant-Baptism p. 40. Nor is there any thing more apparent from History then the mention of Infant-baptism before that councel For the first councel of Carthage which it is like Mr. Tombs meaneth though he distinguisheth not there having been several of the name was held about the yeer 217. according to some computations several yeers after whereas there is mention of â—nfant-Baptism as we heard both in Origen who died before this councel as also in Justin Martyr Ireneus yea and Tertullian who all lived neerer to the times of the Apostles then Origen And it may be worth some observation that Augustine who as we have heard so frequently constantly upon occasion asserteth Infant-baptism it self to have been practised in the Apostles times yet speaking of the custome of interrogating the infant to be baptized by the Susceptores or those that brought it to Baptism whom we call God-fathers and God-mothers affirmeth no such thing concerning this though otherwise he indeavoureth to give the best account of it he can to his friend and fellow-Bishop Boniface Epist 23. Sect. 29. 8. Although no History records either when or by whom Infant-baptism was first brought into the Church yet is the first opposing of it ascribed by good History to an Arrian Heretique named Auxentius with his adherents as the most learned and worthy Martyr Mr. John Phiâ—pot formerly mentioned affirmeth in that letter whereof we took notice in the beginning of § 27. The diligent perusal of this letter alone is enough to make Ana-baptism the abhorring of any intelligent mans soul This Auxentius I find upon the stage acting the part first of a subtile and afterwards of an imperious insulting Arrian about the year 369. So that untill this time the baptizing of Infants it seems was never so much as questioned in the Churches of Christ and he who first questioned and opposed it opposed withall the God-head of Christ So that Mr. A. and his have no great cause to boast of the founder of their Faith in the Doctrine of Anti-poedo-baptism as neither have they of one of the greatest defenders of it since the late resurrection of it from the dead in Germany Lodivicus Hetzer by name who with Auxentius denied the Divinity of Christ and besides was a notorious Adulterer and withall was confident that he was able to justifie his adulterous practises by the Scriptures Indeed the History reporteth that at last he very seriously repented of all as well his Anabaptism for so I understand my Authors Quorum omnium as of his Arrianism and Adulteries a Constantiae quarta Februarij capite truncatur Ludovicus Hetzer Ana-baptistarum
sins which is attainable by Faith in the bloud of Christ may be obtained without Baptism 3. If Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins and sanctification of the spirit then hath God suspended both the justification and sanctification of men and consequently their eternall Salvation upon a ceremonie or carnall Ordinance as Baptism by some of the most learned of Mr. A's partie as we formerly heard is acknowledged to be as well or as much as he hath done upon Faith or Repentance themselves and thus men shall be perfected by the flesh as the Apostle speaketh Yea 4. If a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins or in Sanctification of the Spirit then is a Declaration hereof by Baptism or by submitting to an outward and fleshly ceremonie more accepted with God then a Declaration made by mortification innocencie holinesse of conversation c. The reason of this consequence is plain viz. because a Declaration of a mans Repentance by these or any of them is not required by God nor yet accepted by him upon any such account as to interesse him in remission of sins or to translate him from an estate of sin and death into a state of justification no nor yet to intitle him to the sanctification of the Spirit For he that is not a justified person before any Declaration be made by him of his repentance by such fruits or expressions of it as these will never be justified afterwards Nor can any maÌ„ bring forth any such fruits of Repentance as these unless he be interessed in the sanctification of the Spirit before hand Therefore Baptism is not required on mans part nor yet a Declartion of his repentance by Baptism to interesse him either in Remission of sinâ— or sanctification of the Spirit Sect. 81. 5. If it were so then only children of wrath and persons not yet reconciled unto God should be the regular and lawfull subjects of Baptism For if Baptism be required on mans part to interesse them in Remission of sins all they who are yet unbaptized must needs be under the guilt of their sins and so liable to eternall condemnation for them And if the case be thus Faith and repentance are but dead works untill Baptism quickens them and raiseth them up from the dead 6. If Mr. A's Position now protested were Orthodox and sound John the Baptist was in his bloud I mean in the guilt and pollution of his sins when he entered upon the work and ministerie of baptizing with water yea and for ought appears to the contrary so lived and died and consequently perished eternally for it no where appears that ever he was baptized and if he were not baptized by the verdict of Mr. A's Doctrine he could have neither part nor fellowship in the blessed businesse of Remission of sinnes and so must perish 7. If both Repentance and the Declaration of it by Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins and Sanctification of the Spirit then according to Mr. A's judgement and notion about the truth and requisit terms of the administration of Baptism either all or far the greatest part of the antient Fathers of the Christian Church with the generalitie of Christians in their dayes all or far the greatest part of the worthy Martyrs both in latter and in former times all or far the greatest part of our late Protestant Divines whose zeal learning labour and faithfulnesse God was pleased to use about the Reformation and for the Restauration propagation of the truth of Christian Religion as Luther Calvin Musculus Bucer P. Martyr Zuinglius c. together with our own worthies Perkins Dod Hildersham Preston Sibs c. together with the generalitie of the people taught and instructed by them against all these I say we must write bitter things and conclude that whilst they liv'd they were in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquity and that they died and consequently perished in their sins For most certain it is that these were not baptized as Mr. A. and men of his judgement count and call Baptism and consequently could not make any Declaration of their repentance by Baptism And if so they must all to hell unlesse Mr. A's Doctrine be content to be sent thither in their stead Sect. 82. 8. If no person can make a Declaration of their Repentance by Baptism then cannot a Declaration in this kind or that which M. A. calls a Declaration interesse any man in remission of sins The reason of the consequence in this Proposition is evident That which is not cannot act nor can any such thing or Act interest any man inâ—â—remission of sinnes which may be as well found in those whose sins are not remitted as in those whose are Now that persons who are baptized may be in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquitie and consequently not have their sins remitted their Baptism notwithstanding is apparent in the case of Simon Mâ—gus to whom soon after his baptizing Peter said Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter for thine heart is not right in the sight of God For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitternesse and bands of iniquity Act. 8. 21 23. Nor is the Baptism of a very great part of those who have been of late baptized and this as Mr. A. calls Baptism amongst us any Declaration of their repentance at least not of any such repentance which hath any thing to do with remission of sinnes their unworthy wayes and actions proclaiming them aloud to be persons void as well of the knowledge as fear of God 9. The Grandees themselves of Mr. A's partie yea and I presume himself also with them beleeve and hold that amongst the Heathen unto whom the Name of Jesus Christ was never brought nor the Gospel ever preached orally or by the mouths of men and consequently who were never Baptized there are or may be found persons interessed in Remission of sins If so with what truth can Mr. A. affirm yea rather with what face can he avouch with a most unchristiaÌ„ censure of all those who shall denie it that both Repentance and a Declaration of it by Baptism are required on mans part to interesse him in Remission of sins Sect. 83. 10. In case as well a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism as repentance it self be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins would the Apostle Paul have thanked God he baptized none of the Corinthians but Crispus and Gaius i. that he interessed none of them in remission of sins but these 1 Cor. 1. 14 Or should he have had cause so farre to underrate the office and worth of baptizing beneath the preaching of the Gospell as to say that Christ sent him not to Baptize but to preach the Gospel i. not to do all that which might interesse men compleatly in remission of sins
as to this use as well as the Baptism of Infants For 1. Mr. A. himself was not baptized upon his cordiall embracing the terms of the Gospell but long after 2. If when he was baptized he did thereby enter his publique assent and consent to the terms of the Gospell I believe he entered that which was publique very privatly and in a book legible by very few 3. It is too too manifest that a very great part of those who are baptized in his way neither cordially embrace the Gospell nor yet well understand what the terms of it are How then can they enter their assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospell upon their cordiall embracing it Therefore by the verdict of Mr. A's Doctrine their Baptism also is voided as to that end and use of it of which he here speaks Yea 4. and lastly no man can certainly tell when or by whose Baptism Baptism is not voided as to that end and use which here he ascribes unto it because it cannot certainly be known who amongst those that are baptized do either assent or consent unto the terms of the Gospell much lesse who they are that cordially embrace it So that he hath brought that end and use of Baptism by which in this place he endeavours to void Infant Baptism to a very bad market 3. And lastly for this suppose that end and use of Baptism which here he asserteth unto it were legitimate and really such yea and that the Baptism of Infants were voided as to them yet it followeth not from hence that therefore the Baptism of Infants is unlawfull One end of marriage is legitimate procreation and marriage as to this end of it is voided unto those who marry and never procreate yet it followeth not that the marriage of such as these is unlawfull a See more of this Sect. 67. If any one end of Baptism be competent unto children this is sufficient to justifie their baptizing though others be not Mr. A. advanceth p. 19. Sect. 99. Another excellent effect and use of Baptism is thereby to justifie God in the sight of the world as touching the truth of his sayings in the Gospell for so it is said Luk. 7. 29. That all the people that heard him justified God being Baptized with the Baptism of Iohn And soon after They are said to justifie God in being Baptized because by their voluntarie submission unto that Ordinance they did declare that they judged the Doctrine and Precepts of the Gospell of which Baptism is a part most worthy belief and obedience as coming from God But inasmuch as Infants are only passive in Baptism and not active or voluntary they cannot contribute any thing towards the justification of God c. Nor is the cause of Infant-baptism like to suffer by any thing that is said here For 1. The justification of God in the sight of the world is no effect of Baptism especially not as taken up or practised by Mr. A. most of his way For how can God be justified in the sight of the world by any such transaction of men which is transacted by them out of the sight view and cognisance of the world And we have oft had occasion to consider that most of those baptismall transactions which are practised in Mr. A's way of Baptizing are wont to be little other then clandestine and beheld only by a very few 2. Neither can God be justified in the sight of the world by any act Baptismall or other which either is in it self doubtfully and disputably good at the best or 2. is in itsself irregular or unlawfull or 3. which is so apprehended by the world Now such Baptismall actions as Mr. A. contends for and practiseth are 1. doubtfully good at the best the farre greater part of men Grave Sober and Judicious judging and condemning them as unwarrantable and unlawfull And 2. by the generalitie of the world they are censured not simply and singly as unlawfull but as actions hatefull and much displeasing unto God Therefore the â—ustifying of God in the sight of world can be no fruit or effect much lesse any excellent effect of such actions 3. When wicked and unworthy persons are baptized a kind of traveller too often met with in Mr. A's way God is so far from being justified hereby that he is rather dishonoured and reproached But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth Psal 50. 16. Therefore however the justifying of God in the sight of the world is no effect of Baptism simply but at the most of Baptism as and when regularly administred unto persons judged by God himself in the Scriptures meet for part and fellowship in that Administration 4. Neither doth the Text cited by Mr. A. necessarily prove that the justifying of God touching the truth of his sayings in the Gospell in the sight of the world is any effect or use of Baptism His glosse upon it is not cogent For they are not said to justifie God IN being baptized the words give not this sound but only that having been baptized with the Baptism of Johhn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they now justified God viz. by beleeving that testimonie which God by the mouth of his Son Christ had now given concerning Iohn See ver 24. 25 26 c. intimating that their having been baptized of Iohn inclined them readily to imbrace that honourable testimonie which the Lord Christ had now given unto him whereas the Pharisees and Lawyers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not having been baptized of him i. of Iohn are said to have reâ—ected the counsell of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against themselves or concerning themselves i. by not receiving Christs testimonie of Iohn to have made frustrate and void as to themselves the Gracious intention of God towards them therein which were to have reduced them to an honourable and worthy esteem of Iohn his Ministerie and Doctrine that so they might have beleeved in him whom Iohn in his ministerie so highly magnified and commended unto the world Or Sect. 100. 5. Admit we Mr. A's glosse upon the said place thus farre which I confesse upon second thoughts I judge not improbable vi that all the people that heard Iohn and the Publicans justified God IN or BY their being baptized with his Baptism yet 1. it doth not follow that hereby they justified him as touching the truth of his sayings in the Gospell For as yet I mean whilst the great recourse of people here implyed unto Iohns Baptism continued the Gospell was not known neither had been preached in the world nor did the world understand what the sayings thereof were or rather what they would be or were like to be Therefore the justifying of God as touhing the truth of these could be no such effect or use of Baptism no not of the Baptism of the persons baptized by Iohn as Mr. A. pretendeth
Governours as he speaketh and Pedagogie of the Law whereas the latter Faith justifieth them as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sons i. as persons who have out-grown their Pupillage and received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated the adoption of sons the word here importeth the priviledge or accommodation of Sons permitted unto them by their Fathers when they come to maturitie of years and discretion which accommodation chiefly consisteth in an enlargment of their libertie and exemption from that servile subjection unto Tutours and Governours under which they were whilst children Sect. 106. 5. And lastly for this Nor can I believe that any judicious Expositor either Ancient or Modern was ever tempted with Mr. A's declarative sence of the verb substantive are in the Text before us Calvin upon the place assigns this for a reason why the Law should not alwayes detain Believers in bondage viz. because they ARE the Sons of God And further saith that the Apostle evinceth their libertie by this that they ARE the Sons of God How By faith in Christ For whosoever believe in him this prerogative is conferred upon them that they ARE the sons of God a Probat aliâ ratione iniquum esse ac minimè consentaneum ut lex perpetua servitute astringat fideles quia silicet SVNT filij Dei libertatem inde probat quod SINT filij Dei Quomodo per fideÌ„ these in Christam Nam quicunque in eum credunt datur illis haec prerogativa ut SINT filij Dei Muscâ—lus likewise upon the words is expresse for this substantive sence against the declarative b Omnes enim filij Dei estis per fidem in Christo Jesu Sensus est quotquot in Christo Jesu estis filij Dei ESTIS per fidem Grotius you who have believed in Christ as you ought and continue thus believing are the sons of God viz. adult or come to maturitie of years they who are such begin to enâ—oy their fathers goods And thus ye have received the Spirit of your Father c Vos qui in Christum credidist is ita ut oportet ac sic credere perseveratis estis filij Dei nempe adulti tales qui sunt incipiunt bonis paternis frui Sic vos accepistis Patris Spiritum d Omnes filij Dei estis c. Q d. Etiamsi per Legem sitis vexati humiliati occisi tamen Lex non fecit voâ— justos non fecit vos filios Dei sed fides Luther to name no more commenteth this notion on the words ye are all the sons of God c. As if he should say Although ye are vexed cast down slain by the Law yet hath not the Law made you righteous it hath not made you the Sons of God but Faith hath done these These things considered how importune is Mr. A's deduction from these words ver 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ From hence he concludeth fidenter satis So that the Faith what ever it is by which they were said to be the children of God in ver 26. Must be the same in effect with that which he calls the putting on of Christ in Baptism I cannot but marvell and this not a little upon what basis he should found this consequence or collection or what relation he can apprehend between the two verses ver 26. and ver 27. which should intice a considering man to this belief that Faith in the former should be the same thing in effect with putting on Christ in Baptism in the latter The aspect which the latter verse hath upon the former is plainly this The Apostle in the former having delivered this for truth unto them that they were all viz. who truly believed the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Iesus viz. without any Legall observation as we formerly expounded in the latter gives this for a reason why they should the rather believe it I mean that they were the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Iesus without the help of any legall ceremonie because many of them had submitted unto Baptism had been baptized into Christ by which act of submission they put on Christ i. solemnly professed and engaged themselves totally to conform and adhere to the Discipline of Christ in the Gospell where no Law-ceremonie hath place or is allowed much lesse imposed upon any man So that the strength of the Apostles arguing in the place in hand standeth in this principle or ground in reason what many according to the will of God solemnly and publiquely professe that they believe and ingage themselves to adhere unto must of necessitie be a truth The Apostle here supposeth or taketh for granted as well he might that all those amongst them who had been baptized into Christ had been thus baptized by or according to the will of God This interpretation of his argument in ver 27. to prove what he had affirmed ver 26. viz. that they were all the complete or adult Sons of God by Faith in Christ without the observation of Moses Law makes him to speak and argue like himself and with pregnancie of conviction Whereas Mr. A's comment puts him upon that absurditie in his discourse which Logicians call idem per idem which is when the conclusion to be proved and the medium by which this proof should be made are either formally or materially and to use his own term in effect the same If Mr. Fisher should take any of his Adversaries arguing at such a rate as Mr. A. makes the Apostle to argue here he would tell them that as the wheele-barrow goes rumble to rumble so their conclusions follow from their premises Sect. 107. By the way when the Apostle saith that as many of them as had been baptized had put on Christ he doth not necessarily suppose or imply that such of them who had not been thus baptized had in no sence or upon no account put on Christ For when a thing may be done after severall and different manners they that do it not after one manner may very possibly do it after another The same garment may be put on severall wayes and the same Christ may be put on i. publiquely professed and owned in the world by different forms of profession He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveâ—h God thanks Rom. 14 6. He that came neither eating nor drinking yet came in a way of righteousness as he also did who came both eating and drinking Mat. 11. 18 19. compared with cap. 21. 32. And doubtlesse the Apostle would not have here made those of them who had been baptized the same body or Church with those who had not been baptized which I have elsewhere proved I suppose beyond all reasonable contradiction that he doth a See warer dipping pag. 85 86 if these latter had not made some publique profession of Christ and the
11 12 13 14. Yea Solomon saith The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord. Pro. 15. 8. 21. 27. These places with many more of a like import that might readily be added unto them doe with a surplussage of evidence prove that much benefit did NOT accrue to the doers of the things specified upon the account of the deed done And yet of the two there is much more reason why benefit should accrue unto the doers of such things of the Law as these upon the work done then upon their being Circumcised For 4. Whereas he saith that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done if he speaks of those that were circumcised according to the standing Law viz. on the eight day who were farre the greatest part of the Iewish nation the work it self of Circumcision was not done by them but by others to them unknown Whereas the offering of incense and of sacrifices the observation of the new moons sabbaths and other feasts appointed by the law were works done by persons themselves Now questionlesse if there be any benefit accruing unto men upon the work done it is more like to accrue in this kind upon works done by persons themselves then upon works done totally by others and without their knowledge desire or consent Nor doth nor can Mr. A. give us any substantiall account either from the Scriptures or otherwise why the benefit of Baptism should be more suspended upon the knowledge faith c. of him who is baptized then the benefit of Circumcision was suspended upon the like qualifications of the circumcised For Sect. 128. 5. The Texts of Scripture which he cites prove no such difference as this between the two Ordinances Circumcision and Baptism nor do they either divisim or conâ—unctim prove or so much as colour with a proof that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done For what though the Apostle saith and this by way of contradistinction from the voyce of the Gospell or righteousnesse of faith The man that doth those things shall live by them yet is it no part of his meaning to implie or teach that by the literall performance of the Legall ceremonies men either were or might have been saved The Law of which the Apostle speaks is not the Law of Ceremonies which Mr. A. understandeth but the whole system or body of precepts and commandments delivered by Moses Nor is the Apostles doing those things the same with Mr. A's doing them The Apostle must needs be conceived to speak of such a doing of the things of the Law which includes as well the spiritualitie or perfection of the Law and of the severall precepts thereof at least in will desire and endeavour as the bare letter or externalitie of it For God never made any such Covenant with or promise unto any man that by doing externals only he should be either justified or saved which Mr. A's doing evidently supposeth Nor doth his second Scripture stand any whit closer to his cause then the first For when the Apostle saith Gal. 3. 12. The Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall live in them his meaning is not that the Law required not as well the conformitie and subjection of the inward man unto it as viz. in Love Faith Holinesse Humilitie c. as of the outward consisting of a meere bodily observation of so much of it as might thus be observed but that the voice purport or tenour of the Law did exact of all those who expected justification by it yea in a sense of all men simply an universall and constant obedience and subjection unto it in the whole compasse and extent of it according to what he had more plainly said a verse or two before Cursed is every one that CONâ—INUETH NOT IN ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the Law to do them in which respect it is said not to be of Faith i. not to promise justification unto any act of Faith or beleeving in another Whereas the tenor of the Gospel although it simply requireth as perfect and thorow an obedience unto all the precepts of it as the Law did to all the precepts thereof yet it exacteth not this obedience upon the same inexorable terms nor doth it threaten every person no nor any person with a curse who shall not conâ—nue in all things which are written therein to dâ— them in case they shall truly and unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ So that these two Scriptures rightly understood know nothing either of reason or truth in Mr. A's cause Sect. 129. His other Scriptures levied upon the same account p. 27. 28. do scarce so much as face the design which they are brought into the field to advance For what though the ministration of the Law be called the ministration of the letter and the Ordinances thereof carnall Ordinances and such as did noâ— make perfect as pertaining to the conscience or again that the Apostle to shew wherein the Gospell or new Covenanâ— exceeds the Law or old one saith that according to this God puts his Laws in the minds of men and writes them in their hearts Heb. 8. 10 Or again that the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth what is there I say in all or in any of these or in twenty more of a like import to prove that much of the benefit of Circumcision did accrue to the circumcised upon the work done or that the benefit of baptism is any whit more suspended upon the knowledge Faith c. of him who is baptized then the benefit of Circumcision was c All that can be inferred from these and such like passages are only these and such like notions That God is more communicative of the clear knowledg of himself and of the mysterie of his will concerning the salvation of the world by Jesus Christ under the Gospell then he was under the Law that the anointing of the generalitie of the Saints with the Spirit under this dispensation the Law was nothing so rich or full as it now is under the Gospel that the instituted worship especially the publique worship and service of God under the Law consisted in a farre greater number and varietie of external rites and observations then now under the Gospell that the hearts of the people yea of the people of God themselves were generally nothing so raised or enlarged to the obedience of God under the Law as they are and especially will be when the time cometh under the Gospell c. But none of these things prove so much as inshew that according to the nature of the legal ministration children void of understanding and faith were any whit more capable of holy things or of the endâ— and benefits of them in part upon a literall administration or reception of them then children now are under the Gospell For my better
any person whasoever of the favour of God in generall towards persons to be baptized Nor did they ever denie but that such a profession might be necessary for some other causes besides an information of mens being in the favour of God whether generall or speciall So that the former part of this latter Answer is a meer impertinencie 2. Whereas he supposeth and in effect saith that Baptizers have no reason to conceive persons to be in a present capacitie of Baptism it self unlesse they have reason likewise to conceive them in a present capacitie of the ends and benefits of Baptism I answer 1. if by a present capacitie he means a capacitie which is at present vested and found in the subject in this sence Children are in a present capacitie of the ends and benefits of Baptism as well as men For there is at present and whilst they are yet children a capacity of the ends benefits of Baptism vested and residing in them This hath been shewed and proved formerly Sect. 64 65 68 69. 2. If by a present capacity he means as I suppose his meaning is such a capacity which renders its subject actually and at present capable of the said ends and benefits of Baptism it hath been formerly shewed and proved once and again that such a capacitie is not necessarie to render a person capable of Baptism more then a like capacitie of the ends and benefits of Circumcision was necessary to render Children capable of this Ordinance under the Law Peruse Sect. 69 152. with others So that we have nothing but overthrown Notions and Conceits to make up this Answer But it seems Mr. A. hath been troubled with a second proof of the said minor Proposition which he lifts up his pen to disable in the next place We shall give him somewhat more then the hearing of what he hath to say to this proof also although by the way this is more then the confirmation and proof of our Argument in hand and consequently of the intire cause of Infant-Baptism requireth at our hand For when an Argument is regularly formed one sufficient proof given for the truth of either Proposition I mean both of the Major and the Minor renders the Argument as authentique and concluding as many proofs of either could do Now against the form of the argument in hand no exception hath been nor with either reason or truth can be taken However let us see Mr A. and the second proof he speaks of play together before us Whereas in the second place saith he it is said that it was upon this ground viz. of Gods loving him that Christ himself was capable of Baptism and not his Faith in as much as he had no such Faith as is required of men to render them capable of Baptism to wit a Faith in God touching the remission of sins through Christ and that yet Christ did not receive Baptism upon any terms extraordinary but upon the same terms as others do in as much as it was in conformity to a standing Law of righteousness common to others as well as him This proof is not drawn up either in terms or in substance of notion to the sence of Mr A's Adversaries as we shall shortly declare in particular however let us see whether the peny of it be not better silver then the Answers To this I answer That this Reason is built upon a mistaken ground as supposing Christ to have no such faith as MIGHT render him capable of Baptism at least such as is required of other men in order thereunto for Christ had the same faith which Mr. A. p. 47. is required all other persons in that case For what Faith was required of other men to render theâ— capable of Baptism save this viz. To beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God For so when the Eunuch demanded of Philip See here is water what hindreth me to be Baptised Then Philip answered and said If thou beleevest with all thine heart thou mayest And he answered Philip again and said I beleeve that Iesus Christ is the Son of God I Answer Sect. 183. Whereas Mr A. saith that the Reason which he is to Answer is built upon a mistaken ground the truth is that this is not the building of the reason but of the answer here made to it For 1. The reason he speaks of doth not speak as he makes it to speak viz. That it was upon the ground of Gods Love to Christ that Christ himself was capable of Baptism But what speaketh it it speaketh this That it was the relation of Son ship in Christ unto God that rendered him thus capable How material the difference is between these two hath formerly been opened 2. Whereas this answer saith that Christ had the samâ— faith which is required of all other persons in that case it builds upon another mistaken ground For that the faith which was in Christ was essentially and specifically differing from that which is reqâ—irea of â—ther persons in the case he speaks of is evident from hence viz. because such properties which are essential unto and do universally accompany that faith which is required of other persons in the case specified were wanting in the faith of Christ That faith which is required of other persons in the said case must be accompanied in its subject with repentance for siâ— perpetrated and committed This is so essential unto this Faith that without it no Faith whatsoever gives unto the persons we speak of a regular capacity of Baptisme * At least according to Mr. As. principles Yea Baptisme as we have oft heard is described by its relation unto Repentance not unto Faith as the more proper and signal qualifier of the two for its reception Therefore that Faith which is not accompanied in the same subject with repentance is not of that kind or species of Faith which is required in persons in order to their baptizing and consequently that Faith which was in the Lord Christ not being thus accompanied for he that never sinned could not repent of his sins was not could not be of the same kinde of Faith with that required in other persons Again that kind of Faith which is required of ordinary men and women upon the account before us in all and every the particular and individual actings and residings of it obtaineth remission of sins But the faith which was in Christ obtained no remission of sinnes Therefore it was a Faith of a differing kind from the Faith required of other persons Sect. 184. Yet again upon that Faith which is required in other persons c. this Law is imposed by God in all and every the residings of it viz. that upon the first coming of it unto and working of it in the soul a profession or declaration of it â—b â—eopenly made by Baptism This is Mr. A's own a vouched Doctrine in the premises and is also asserted by him in the sequel of his present Answer
They are said to have justified God in or by submitting unto Iohns Baptism in asmuch as by this submission they did acknowledge his ministerie and Baptism to be from heaven i. from God and withall that the tenour and substance of his ministerie which was that upon the Repentance of those who had sinned their sins should be forgiven them was very gracious and good 2. Nor doth it follow that though they justified God in these respects by being Baptized by John that therefore they justified him in the sight of the world there being little or perhaps nothing of the world present when they were baptized They rather justified God I mean did that which was proper to justifie God in the sight of the world by their publique owning and professing this their Baptism afterwards then simply by their receiving it Therefore Sect. 101. 6. Whereas he assumes that Infants being only passive in Baptism and not voluntarie cannot contribute any thing to the justification of God c. he alters the state of the Question between him and his adversaries which is not whether Infants but whether Infant-Baptism contributes any thing to the justification of God although neither is this indeed the state of the Question no nor yet of any considerable connexion with it For many things may be lawfull which do not contribute any thing to the justification of God in the sight of the world Yet 2. that Infant-Baptism contributes every whit as much or rather more to the justification of God as to the truth of his sayings in the Gospell in the sight of the world as the baptizing of men and women is evident from hence The Parents who offer their children unto Baptism are for the most part and should be alwaies experienced Christians and of long acquaintance with the Gospell and consequently cannot reasonably but be presumed to have better knowledge and assurance both of the truth and likewise of the goodnesse of the sayings of God in the Gospell then men and women who are newly converted to the Gospell who notwithstanding according to Gospell rule in case of a non-pre-baptism yea and according to Mr. A's principles themselves whether in such a case or otherwise are the only men and women that ought to be baptized excepting the case of oversight Now 1. it cannot be thought that Parents being long experienced Christians would offer their childrē to be baptized unlesse themselves were verily perswaded both of the truth and goodnesse of the sayings of God in the Gospell And 2. the testimonie of those concerning the truth and goodnesse of things or sayings who have best known and had the most experience of them amounts to a richer and fuller justification of them and so of him who hath spoken them then the testimonie of such persons who are at least comparatively strangers to them Therefore though Infants themselves cannot contribute to the justification of God in the case before us yet Infant-baptism may and doth contribute altogether as much or rather more as the Baptizing of men and women especially if baptized in these years when and as soon as by rule they ought Sect. 102. 3. That which Mr. A's most regular actives and voluntaries in their Baptism contribute to the justifying of God in the truth of his sayings in the Gospell and sight of the world is not so much as hath been already observed by their being baptized as by their publique owning and professing this their Baptism afterwards in the face of the world If so then may Infants themselves living unto the age and years of men by a like publique owning of their baptism with the other contribute as much to the justifying of God in the sight of the world as they 4. And lastly for this The Infants of the Jews were no whit more active or voluntarie in their circumcision then the Infants of Christians are in their Baptism Yet God judged himself as much or more justified in the sight of the world by the circumcision of those Infants as he did by the circumcision of men otherwise he would rather have enjoyned the circumcision of men only and not of children at all 5. Whereas Mr. A. calleth Baptism a part of the Gospell he might more properly and truly if we respect either the institution or first practise and administrations of it in which consideration Mr. A. discourseth of it call it a part of the Law For Iohns Doctrine was not that the kingdom of heaven by which all understand the state of the Gospell it self or else the state of the Church under the Gospell was already come but only that it was nigh at hand Mat. 3. 2. Nor were the Legall or Mosaicall administrations abolished so much as to the precept or necessitie of them in John's dayes and consequently there was no opportunitie for the introducing or erecting of any Evangelicall Ordinance whil'st his ministerie continued Besides we read Gal. 4. 4. that Christ was made under the law but no where that he was made under the Gospell And himself saith that he came to fulfill the law Mat. 5. 17. which he had in other words expressed before Mat. 3. 15. saying that it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse giving this unto Iohn for a reason why it was meet for him to subject himself unto Baptism as well as he had done unto circumcision and other legall observations Or however if we notion Baptism as a Gospell Ordinance it is very improperly yea untruly term'd a part of the Gospell The Gospell is the Covenant Baptism the Seal of this Covenant as Mr. A. and the Generalitie of Rebaptizers with him do acknowledge for in hoc as it seems non tenetur Magister Fisher and therefore can be no part of it as the seal annexed to a writing is no part of the writing But finis unius mali gradus est futuri and Mr. A. proceedeth Mr. A. p. 19. 20. Sect. 103. 5. Lastly Another great end of Baptism when taken up by persons under due qualifications is to distinguish and difference them from the world to characterise them as peculiarly relating unto God in which respect amongst others al those that are baptized into Christ are said to put on Christ Gal. 3. 27. they thereby declare themselves to belong to him as the servants of great men are known to belong to them by their badg and livery which they put on when they enter themselves servants to them After a little lesse pertinent discourse about the distinguishing use of the Law he assumse thus But now this way the differencing men lasted but till such time as Faith came as the Apostle notes But after Faith is come saith he we are no longer under a Shoolmaster v. 25. i. no longer known to be Disciples or Scholars as formerly we were by our keeping of the Law The Mosaicall dispensation continued till faith came i. e. untill the time of the gospel dispensatiō then faith became of the same use to denominate