Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	peter_n	prove_v	relative_a	15	3	16.2515	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85387	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 brielfy 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.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.	1655 (1655)	Wing G1155; Thomason E849_1; ESTC R207377	373,602	521

yet peace before joy Rom. 14. 17. Melchizedeck's act in blessing Abraham is mentioned in the first place and his blessing the God of Abraham in the latter Gen. 14. 19 20. So likewise the burnt-offering is named before the sin-offering Levit. 12. 8. whereas the sin-offering was in order of time to go before it as appears Levit. 8. 14 18. and so again Levit. 9. 7 c. It were easie to multiplie instances in this kind I mean both where there is an interchangable expression of the same things in respect of prioritie and posterioritie as likewise where that which precedes in time is mentioned after that which in time comes behind it Therefore from the Order in Peters exhortation between Repentance and Baptism nothing can be argued to prove a necessitie that Repentance alwayes ought in respect of time to precede Baptism as neither did it precede in the Baptism of which notice was taken formerly 2. In case it were granted that from the Scripture yet on the stage it could be proved yea or were so evident as Mr. A. gloryingly over his adversaries pretendeth that remission of sins dependeth in part upon Baptism and that neither Faith Repentance Love Humility Self-deniall Mortification with all the heavenly retinew of the Graces of the Spirit can do any thing to the interessing men in this priviledge but only in conjunction with Baptism yet neither from hence will it follow that therefore Infant-baptism is unlawfull yea or not as available in this kind as Mr. A's after-baptism is Evident it is that there is no rational footing for either of these inferences in either of the premises For the lawfulnesse of Infant-baptism supposed the contrary whereof as we even now demonstrated cannot be proved from the Scripture in hand there can be no reason to dis-interesse it in any priviledge or blessing which is vested in any Water-baptism whatsoever Sect. 98. Thus at last we see as by a noon-day light how unadvisedly and upon how slight grounds Mr. A. hath fallen un-Christianly foul and heavie upon his Christian Brethren dissenting from him in his sence about Baptism by adjudging the case against them thus It is too evidēt to be denied by any but those that wil not see from Act. 2. 38 39. That both Repentance and the Declaration of it by Baptism is required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins sanctification of the spirit And as touching this latter the Sanctification of the Spirit that Baptism is not necessarily or universally required on mans part to interess him herein is of much more easie demonstration then the former But enough upon this account hath been said formerly considering how point-blank the Scripture lieth in many places against this conceit Review the eighth Section of this Discourse Although Mr. A. for cause best known to himself waves the impanelling of Act. 22. 16. to serve upon his Jurie as hath been formerly noted yet because Gehezi thinks himself wiser at this turn then his Master and will not lose the opportunitie and advantage so seeming to him of such a Scripture though the other letteth it passe let us bestow a few lines in the examination of it also The words are these And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling upon the Name of the Lord. Paul himself reporteth these words as spoken unto him by Ananias upon his sight restored of which he had been for a season deprived by means of the glory of that light wherein the Lord Christ had appeared unto him from heaven as he was journeying towards Damascus Now because Ananias expresseth himself unto Paul thus be baptized and wash away thy sins some according to the tenour of Mr. A's Doctrine inferre that therefore Baptism washeth away sinnes i. procureth Justification or pardon of sinne in the sight of God But to this we answer 1. Substantiall proof hath been made and this by many arguments that remission of sinnes is the purchase or procurement of the blood of Jesus Christ and is obtained or received by such a Faith which is accompanied with a true Repentance and that it is not suspended either in whole or in part upon Water-baptism 2. Evident it is that Paul when and before the words in hand were spoken unto him by Ananias was in an estate of Justification before God and had obtained a remission of all his sins For 1. Ananias saluteth him BROTHER Saul Act. 22. 13. before he baptized him which doubtlesse had he judged him to be in an estate of Reprobation he would not have done 2. He prayed and this with acceptation in the sight of God before he was baptized Act. 9. 11. This also evinceth him to have been in favour with God before his said baptizing and consequently that his sinnes were forgiven him 3. When Ananias replied unto the Lord Christ speaking unto him in a vision and injoyning him to seek out Paul that he had heard by many how much evill he had done to the Saints at Jerusalem the Lord made him this answer Go thy way for he is a chosen vessell unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles and Kings and the children of Israel For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my Names sake c. These things sufficiently declare him to have been in favour with Christ whilst he was yet unbaptized and so not to have been in a state of condemnation or under the guilt of his sinnes and consequently that his sinnes were not for given him either by means of or upon his baptizing 4. The Lord Christ had in a most extraordinarie and glorious manner revealed himself from heaven unto him telling him plainly that he was Jesus whom he persecuted and Paul beleeved him accordingly Act. 9. 5 6. Therefore certainly by this time he was in a state of acceptation with Christ and so cleansed from his sins 5. And lastly if his sins were in any such way or sence washed away in or by his Baptism as if untill now he had been in a state of wrath thorow a retainment or non-forgivenesse of his sinnes by God then had Ananias admitted an unclean person and a child of Sathan unto Baptism when he admitted Paul and consequently neither Faith nor Repentance nor yet the profession of either shall be necessarie to qualifie for Baptism unlesse it be said that Ananias acted contrary to Gospell rule in baptizing Paul Therefore certainly Ananias his meaning in saying unto him Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins c. was not that by being baptized he should be justified in the sight of God or obtain the pardon and forgivenesse of his sins These as hath been proved having been forgiven him before his baptizing but that either 1. he should wash away his sins Typically or Sacramentally or else and rather 2. that upon his being baptized he should wash away his sinnes i. in his own expression and phrase cleanse himself from all

practise in question by those very reasons from the bond or obliging force whereof the Apostles might be discharged by others of a preponderant consideration Therefore the arm of Mr. A's reason is too short to reach his conclusion Sect. 21. In the upshot of his proof of his major proposition he tells us that it might be backed if needfull he might more truly have said bellied or made more bulky then backed or strengthned from Philip 3. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 1 2. From which Texts he would prove that we ought to follow Christ and his Apostles in what they did as being rules and examples to us what to do and what not in all manner of worship or actions which they did or did not Either this must be his inference from these Scriptures or else his citation of them is no waies relative to his purpose But evident it is from what hath been already argued neither these Scriptures nor any other of their calculation do require any further or any other imitation either of Christ himself or of the Apostles then 1. In such waies and actions which are prescribed unto us by some Commandement or other of God and 2. In such cases when we are ingaged by or are found under the same circumstances to follow by which they were ingaged to go before But the said Scriptures do at no hand nor with any tolerable face of probability impose it as a duty upon us to refrain all actions or practises which for ought we know they refrained especially not to refrain all such actions or practises which in case they did refrain they had ground and reason to refrain and we not Yet unlesse Mr. A. can tamper these Scriptures to speak this they will in effect say to him and his cause for which he seeks their advocation Depart from us we know you not Thus we see by a light as clear as any the Sun shines at noon day that the major proposition in Mr. A's first argument is very crazie and so no competent material to make a pillar for any mans Faith or practise And if this proposition be shaken the whole strength and glory of the Argument according to the rule mentioned § 14. is already in the dust Notwithstanding lest any man should be so ignorant or weak as not to give credit to the said rule but think that if either of the propositions in an Argument will stand the Argument may by vertue hereof be authentique and in force let us bring the minor proposition which he calls The assumption to the touch-stone also The tenor of this proposition is this But Baptism was not administred to Infants neither in the daies of John the Baptist nor of the Apostles If this proposition were true and could be demonstrated yet it comes too late to salve the credit of the Argument as was lately said But being carefully weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary it will be found too light as the former also was For Sect. 22. 1. It is no where said or affirmed that Infants were not baptized by John the Apostles c. Therefore unlesse it can be proved by some light and pregnant consequence from somewhat that is written that they were not baptized which to do would make a new thing under the Sun the proposition before us is no proposition of Faith nor stands any man bound to beleeve it 2. Mr. A's proof from the total silence of the Scripture herein is as good as total silence or the speaking of nothing For it is a common and true rule that Argumentum ab authoritate ductum negativè non valet a negative Argument from Authority proves nothing And Mr. A. from the total silence of the Scripture may as well prove that neither husband men nor Merchants nor Taylors nor Shoe-makers nor persons of twenty other callings besides were baptized as well as that infants were not baptized There is alike total silence of the Scripture concerning the baptizing of the one and the other or if there be any difference in this kind the silence is not so perfectly or absolutely total concerning the baptizing of children as of the others as will appear presently Sect. 23. 3. That total silence of the Scriptures which he pleadeth to prove the non-baptizing of children in the Apostles days may with as much reason be construed as an argument that they were baptized constantly and of course For matters of common and known practise the knowledge whereof doth not much concern future times especially when these practises may be●evinced otherwise are frequently and as it were of course pretermitted in Historical narrations There is very little mention made of children circumcised in the old Testament the reason questionlesse is because their Circumcision was so common a practise There is much more notice taken of the Circumcision of men see Gen. 17. 23 24 25. Gen. 34. 24. Jos 5. 7. 8. because this was a practise besides yea and contrary to the letter of the institution I conclude therefore saith Mr. Baxter p. 116. of his Discourse for Infant-Church-membership and Baptism that it is a most evident truth that Christ did not speak about Infants-Church-membership because it was a known truth beyond controversie Nor was there any one man found in those days that we read of that ever denied it and all the Jews yea and all other Church-members were in actual possession of it and Christ never questioned their possession Upon the like account it very well may be that there is so much spoken in the New-Testament of the baptizing of men and women and so little or nothing at all in so many words of the baptizing of children The frequent mention of men and women baptized may with as much probability if not more argue that the first administrations of Baptism were out of course and contrary to the order setled by the institution made unto them as that they should be exemplary or binding unto future ages As the recording of so many men circumcised about the first institution of Circumcision was not intended to make these administrations standingly or in ordinary cases exemplary or obligatory unto after-times because this had been to defeat the express letter of the institution but rather to shew that in like cases and under like circumstances viz. when male Jews or Proselites had not been circumcised the eight day they might be circumcised afterwards when ever they had opportunity And pr●b●ble it is that the circumcising of so many men Jos 5. was warranted unto Joshua by the record of those examples In like manner the reason why the Holy Ghost maketh such frequent report in the New-Testament of men and women baptized may with greatest ●●obability be not to leave these examples for patterns or rules in all no nor yet in ordinary cases but onely in such cases which parallel those wherein the said administrations are reported to have been made viz. when men and women should at any time be converted from an idolatrous

themselves might they not justly have denied Paul's assertion concerning their being compleat in Christ might they not have objected and said we are not as compleat in Christ or under the Gospel as we were or might be in Moses or by subjecting our selves to the Law In Moses or under the Law we had the great spiritual priviledge or accommodation of Circumcision as well for our children as our selves whereas in Christ or under the Gospel we want not onely the Ordinance of Circumcision but all other priviledges or accommodations of like import in respect of our children For the Baptism you speak of and which you make the successor of Circumcision you permit us not to administer unto them In this respect therefore we are maimed or lame in Christ not so well accommodated not so compleated in him as we were in Moses under the Law 11. Some of the greatest Defenders of Mr. A's faith in the point of Anti-poedo-Baptism acknowledge that according to Mr. A's principles touching the extent of the Grace of God in the death of Christ children ought to be baptized If saith Mr. Tombs Exercit. concerning Infant-Baptism pag. 24. it should be made known to us that Children are sanctified I should not doubt that they are to be baptized He expresseth his sence to the same purpose elsewhere as viz. pag. 19. Now according to the tenor of Mr. A's faith the Apostles did know that Children were sanctified and consequently according to the sence of the prime head of his party that they ought to be baptized And if the Apostles doubted not but that children were to be baptized how can I reasonably doubt but that they did baptize them I know some others of Mr. A's sence in the point of Rebaptism who join with Mr. Tombs in his sence touching the meetnesse of baptizing infants upon a supposal of their being in favour with God Sect. 32. 12. And lastly there ●an no probable no nor tolerable reason or account be given why any such innovation or practice as the baptizing of Infants should be brought into the Churches of Christ especially so soon after the Apostles and in those times wherein all records of Antiquity mention the use and practice of it This is another consideration pregnant of proof that Infant-Baptism was the practice of the Apostles as well as of later times If it could be supposed to be any waies gratificatory to the flesh which yet is a studied and far-fetch'd pretence yet such a motive or ground as this no waies suits with the zeal diligence faithfulness painfulness self-denial most exemplary mortification of the chief Pastors of Churches and Ministers of the Gospel in those times Non ut nunc sic olim it is a very weak and childish conceit to imagine that Tertullian Origen Cyprian Jerome Austine with many other worthy Agents for Christ and the Gospel in their times who were able and ready to be baptized in their own bloud for Christ and the Gospels sake as 〈◊〉 of them actually were should rebell against so great an Ordinance of Christ and Gospel institution as Baptism or deprave and vitiate the Administration of it thorough fear of going into cold water and of administring it in a River especially considering that in those warmer Climates of the world where they lived cool waters were rather matter of delight and refreshing unto nature then of offence or inconvenience Yea Mr. Laurence for the Treatise intituled Of Baptism is generally reputed his and is none of the worst pieces written in the cause of Anti-poedo-Baptism to salve his notion of the necessity of dipping if it may be out of the hand of the Holy Ghost recording the baptizing of the Jaylor and his houshold by Paul to have been in the night is pleased to suppose that in those Eastern and hotter Countries bathing was of great and continual use and that in this respect the keeper of the Prison MIGHT be provided of some vessel fit for bathing and washing the whole body which might serve for the use of Baptism a Of Baptism pag. 81 82. I confesse this is a pretty ingenious conceit to help a lame notion over the wall that standeth in the way but in the mean time we see how the greatest Patrons of Anti-poedo-Baptism are necessitated to Sanctuary their cause under the shadow of their wits and fancies the Scriptures ever and anon forsaking them and many times rising up against them They tell us that we build onely upon consequences and deductions from Scripture wherein we are fallible and subject to errour but certainly the weakest of our consequences are much stronger then such suppositions as this and more relative to the Scriptures Yea the very truth is that themselves hold nothing that reacheth their cause in opposition unto us but onely consequences such as they are pretended from the Scriptures They never yet produced nor ever will any Text of Scripture wherein Infant-Baptism is in expressenesse of words declared to be unlawfull Therefore they who undertake to prove it such from the Scriptures must of necessity levy consequences to serve in their warfare But the late mentioned Author to preserve dipping from drowning in the Jaylors baptism makes two suppositions like two corkes one upon another neither of which hath so much as one dust or grain of sand in the Scripture for a foundation First that the Jaylor had a Vessel in his house fit for ba●hing and washing the whole body 2. That this vessel served for the use of Baptism by dipping If his intent was onely to affirm and say that he MIGHT have such a Vessel and again that such a Vessel MIGHT serve for Baptism he supposeth indeed nothing but what may well be supposed but withall saith nothing to his purpose But this by the way Onely evident it is upon the credit of my Author that in the hotter Regions of the earth going into the water could be no great affliction to the flesh as neither is it in these colder Climates themselves in warm seasons as well boys as men going into rivers and dowsing themselves over head and ears for their pleasure Therefore an unwillingnesse to administer Baptism in rivers is no likely motive occasion or temptation to have diverted the primitive and worthy Bishops and Pastors of Christian Churches from such an administration of it to an administration by sprinkling had they apprehended it to be the onely regular administration How otherwise the sprinkling of infants should accommodate the interest of the flesh more then the baptizing of Beleevers in Rivers is as far as I can apprehend of no easie conjecture And however no accommodation whatsoever in this kind is like either to have perverted the judgements or polluted the consciences either of Cyprian or of any other those most zealous and faithfull servants of God who both before him and after him and in the same age with him unanimously both pleaded and practised Infant-Baptism It is a memorable saying of this Cyprian and

actuall reception of it is the Baptism unto which especially and in the first place Peter in the Scripture before us exhorteth men sin his exhortation unto them to be baptized Otherwise we must make the sence and meaning of this his exhortation to rise thus Be ye baptized whether you be convinced of the necessitie yea or of the lawfulnesse of it or no and whether you have an opportunity for it which your consciences can in every respect approve of or no I suppose that Mr. A. himself will not put such a construction as this upon the Apostles exhortation unto Baptism Therefore it is a most unquestionable and undeniable truth that Peter in the Text in hand doth not simply or in all cases no nor yet principally or primarily exhort Repentants unto the actuall reception of water baptism but only unto such a vertuall eminent and constructive Baptism as that lately described and not at all unto water-baptism but only upon the terms and conditions specified under which indeed he that shall refuse this kind of Baptism declares himself a rebell against the Lord Christ as all Anti-paedo-baptists in the judgment of that worthy Martyr Mr. John Philpot do in not suffering children to come unto Christ by Baptism and during this rebellion cannot be interessed in remission of sins Sect. 92. If it be yet objected and said that questionlesse the repenting Jews whom Peter exhorted to be baptized understood him to speak of water-baptism only and of none other and consequently submitted unto his exhortation thus understood and were actually water-baptized without any more ado I answer 1. It cannot be proved that the Jews to whom he spake understood him in such a sencc only as that specified in the Objection 2. In case this could be proved yet will it not follow from hence that either they did well in not apprehending a further sence in his words or that Peter himself did not intend a further sence some such as that represented in them 3. Nor doth their ready and speedy betaking themselves unto Water-baptism at all argue that they understood him to speak of this Baptism simply or only because they being already before they came at the water baptized with that inward Baptism of the heart we speak of and being under no scruple or doubt whether it was the mind and will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized or no or whether the opportunitie before them was in all points legitimate or no the Apostles expresse order for their baptizing either by himself or by others authorised by him being a sufficient ground for their satisfaction in all these particulars they were obliged in conscience without any more adoe to be actually Water-baptized and it is freely acknowledged that all persons whatsoever being under the same terms of satisfaction with them both as touching a necessitie as touching a compleat legitimatenesse of an opportunitie are bound in conscience to be baptized with water as well as they Only with this proviso that though persons now be as fully satisfied touching a necessitie of being baptized as they were yet if the grounds of mens satisfaction in this kind now be unsound and sandie as they must needs be in case their opinion be true who judge the date of the necessitie of Water-baptism to be now expired their submission unto this Baptism though lesse sinfull then the contrary yet is it not justifiable Sect. 93. If it be yet said that it is no waies probable that Peter himself had any other meaning in his words when he commanded them to be Baptized but simply and plainly that he would have them forthwith to be water-baptized and consequently that he had no thought of any such Baptism eminently or vertually so called which you put upon him To this also I answer as hath in part been answered already That it is somewhat yea much more then probable that though Peter did not formally or explicitly mean any thing more in the words in question then what the Objection pretendeth yet he presupposed that kind of Baptism which we plead and that he would not have exhorted them to be baptized with water unlesse he had known them to be baptized already with that other Baptism The reason is evident because had he not supposed them either already satisfied before his exhortation directed unto them or at least that they would be satisfied by it that it was the will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized and that there was an opportunitie before them every wayes legitimate for their reception of this Baptism he would in the first place rather have endeavoured to satisfie them that this was the will and pleasure of Christ concerning them and that the opportunitie before them for receiving Baptism was every wayes legitimate and approveable then have either commanded or exhorted them to be presently baptized The result of this clear and thorow Examination of Peters exhortation to the Iews to be baptized for the remission of sins amounteth to this that the said Exhortation imposeth a necessitie upon no man of being water-baptized for the remission of sins in the great day but upon such persons only who stand under the like terms of satisfaction every wayes touching the said baptizing under which he exhorted the Iews to be thus Baptized If so then Mr. A's Notion or interpretation of this exhortation must needs fall to the ground which beareth that the said exhortation maketh it evident yea too evident to be denied by any but those that will not see that a Declaration of the repentance by Baptism he means by an actuall reception of Water-baptism is required on mans part he means universally and in all cases otherwise he would have distinguished to interesse him in remission of sins he means in such an estate of justification as the Scripture so frequently appropriateth unto true Beleevers immediatly upon their beleeving Such an inference or notion as this hath no more communion with those words for whence it pleads with such an unseemly confidence legitimacie of descent then shews have with substances and meer appearances with realities and truths Sect. 94. 3. Our Protestant expositours generally leave Mr. A's confidence and conceit upon the Text in the point in hand for the Papists to gather up who fall greedily upon them and make great treasure of them Although saith Calvin in the contexture of the words Baptism goeth before remission of sins yet in respect of order it followeth after because it is nothing else but an obsignation or sealing of those good things which we obtain by Christ that they may be ratified in our consciences a Tametsi in contextu verborum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remissionem peccatorum hic praecedit ordine tamen sequitur quia nihil aliud est quàm bonorū quae per Christum consequimur obsignatio ut in conscientiis nostris rata sint Calv. in Act 2. 38. Gualter saith that Peter admonisheth them of outward Baptism which he commandeth them

witnes preacher of it according to what he speaketh else where in the same Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For this cause came I into the world that I might bear witnesse to the truth b Ioh. 18. 37 And thus the said Preposition might be rendred and perhaps better then now it is Mat. 15. 24. Col. 1. 20. c vi Redemption redeemed p. 44 and I suppose in severall other places which do not at present occurre According to this construction of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meaning of the exhortation be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sins ariseth to this effect Since upon and by means of your repentance you obtain so rich a priviledge as remission of sins is thorow the Lord Iesus be not ashamed to be baptized in his Name i. to own him for your sovereign Lord and master in the face of the world Now 2. That this interpretation of the clause is savourie and Evangelicall is of ready demonstration For what can be more reasonable then that men should publiquely and without being ashamed acknowledge and own him for their Gracious Benefactour for whom they have received favours of high concernment unto them and this in consideration of these worthy favours received And unlesse we shal admit of some such cōstruction of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Mat. 3. 11. we must make Baptism as well required on mans part to interesse him in Repentance or make impenitents either the only or the best capable subjects of Baptism as well as in remission of sins For here Iohn Baptist saith expresly to the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. I indeed baptize you with water FOR OR VNIO REPENTANCE 3. And lastly for this the sence given no wayes disaccommodates the Context any whit more then Mr. A's interpretation it self doth Nor can there any account be given of such a dis-accommodation Sect. 97. 7. Yet once more to the Scripture in hand these words for the remission of sins may be well conceived to relate only to the word Repent in the beginning of the ver●e and the words coming between and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus to be inserted after the māner of a parenthesis directing the Iews what to do upon their repentance not for the procuring or obtaining the forgivenesse of their sins which as we already shewed from the current of the Scriptures is promised unto repentance not unto Baptism but for a sacred testimonie unto the world that at present they were and as a solemn ingagement upon themselves ever to remain and be the true and loyall Disciples of Iesus Christ 8. Some interpret and be baptized figuratively as if Peter by the sign understood the thing signified or professed by it of which Dialect there are many instances in Scripture According to this interpretation Repent and be baptized is no more then Repent and believe Baptism in capable subjects as all these were to whom Peter now speaks signifying and importing Faith and the profession of it 9. This clause for the remission of sins may be understood in a kind of declarative sence as many such scripture expressions likewise are and so signifie for the secureing or assuring your selves of the remission of your sins It is a true rule that words and phrases which more frequently signifie such or such spirituall priviledges at present obtained by Faith are sometimes used to signifie the actuall and reall fruition of these priviledges and their compleat manifestatiom Thus Rom. 8. 23. even we do sigh in our selves waiting for the ADOPTION c. i. for the full enjoyment or manifestation of our adoption c. So Gal. 5. 5. We thorow the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by Faith i. for the actuall and compleat manifestation and fruition of those good things which we now expect and hope for upon the account of our justification before God by beleeving Thus also Mat. 6. 12 14. Forgivenesse of sins is put for the knowledge comfort or assurance of this forgivenesse to omit other instances of a like dialect Some such sence as this of Remission of sins in the ●cripture before us is very proper for the place because it so fitly agreeth with this part of Peters exhortation and be baptized one speciall use and end of Baptism as Mr. A. himself acknowledgeth and this more then once if I mistake not in this very discourse being to seal ratifie or insure unto men the remission of their sins upon repentance Besides in emphaticallnesse of language wherein the holy Ghost much delighteth also Remission of sins is not it self is not what it may be made unto those in whom it is vested untill it be known unto them and so enjoyed by them This construction of the place maketh not remission of sins it self which is Mr. A's sence but the knowledge comfort or enjoyment of this remission to be dependent at least to a degree upon Water-baptism in conjunction with repentance Though some of the interpretations of the passage Act. 2. 38 39. now insisted on and explained may possibly seem somewhat more hard and scant of satisfaction then their fellows yet is the hardest of them all better comporting with the generall notion and doctrine of the Gospell and no lesse with the words and phrases themselves then that sence which Mr. A. labours in the very fire to fasten on them Lastly for this suppose we that Mr. A's conceit about the meaning of the said Scripture should against Scripture light be admitted yet would neither his Anti-paedo-baptismall conceit nor his conceit about the necessitie of water-dipping receive any incouragement or credit at all hereby Not the latter because here is only mention made of being baptized nothing at all so much as hinted at the greatest distance touching the necessitie of any determinate manner of the performance or reception of it Nor yet the former because 1. from the order of the two duties as they are here exprest and named first Repentance and then being baptized nothing can be concluded for an universall necessitie of the one to precede the other in time there being scarce any thing of more common observation in the Scriptures then that the order of things as well that of time as of nature is here frequently interchanged and that mentioned in the first place which in respect of Order as well the one as the other is latter Joh 3. 5. Water which Mr. A. understands of Baptismall water is mentioned before the Spirit in the work of regeneration Baptizing Mat. 3. 6. is mentioned before confessing of sins yea and ver 11. before repentance Confession with the mouth Rom. 10. 9. is mentioned before beleeving with the heart So the Greek is mentioned before the Jew Colos 3. 11. as the Jew before the Greek Gal. 3. 28. So again joy is mentioned before peace Gal. 5. 22. and

that authoritie which they had from God otherw●se for the confirmation or avouchment of such things Especially considering that the Jews with whom they had either only or chiefly to do in these reasonings subscribed to the Authoritie of the Scriptures but rejected the Authoritie of the persons who argued from them and did not own them as teachers sent from God And however the Apostle Peter maketh the word of Prophesie i. the Scriptures of the old Testament more sure i. of greater and of a more rationall authoritie for a mans satisfaction and conviction touching the truth of what they deliver then a voice from heaven 2 Pet. 1. 18 19. when things taught are of a ready perception and deduction from the Scriptures and the Divine Authoritie of the Scriptures acknowledged by the persons to whom these things are delivered it is very unreasonable for the Teachers to bear themselves with a strong hand upon their extraordinarie Commission or Authoritie from God to teach especially towards such hearers who are hard to be convinced hereof Nor are the scripture-instances produced by Mr. A. to shew the contrary any wayes pertinent to such a purpose And that he is mistaken in that wherein he placeth his greatest trust Mat. 12. 8. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day I have shewed elsewhere a Water-dipping Consider 1. pag. 6. directing the Reader where he may find a very sufficient account given that by the Son of man in that saying is not meant the Lord Christ himself but any person of mankind as the the phrase oft signifieth in scripture Job 25. 6. 35. 8. Esa 51. 12. 56. 2. Psal 8. 4. 144. 3. 146. 3. to omit others 2. If neither Christ nor his Apostles ever made the Scriptures or those scripture-examples upon which they argued and avouched their Doctrine the sole ground and foundation hereof by what Authoritie can we do it Upon what account can we raise Doctrines from and build conclusions upon any scripture-examples yea though the Doctrines we raise and build in this kind be but of a morall consideration and of the easiest and readiest perception and deduction from these examples Or are they who do raise any Doctrinall conclusion from any Scripture example worthy reproof for so doing Or if Mr. A. teacheth this doth he not make a rod for his own back Sect. 144. 3. Whereas he pleads that the things which Christ and the apostles in the cases objected plead for examples out of the Law were not meerly and barely institutive but of a morall consideration and so of a more ready perception c. pretending that Infant-baptism hath no morall equity in and of it self discernable to commend it I clearly answer that though Baptism it self be institutive and positive yet Baptism with the severall gracious ends intended by God in it supposed which is nothing but what Mr. A. himself as well as his adversaries supposeth the baptizing of Infants is of a morall consideration and hath equitie in and of it self to commend it If God intended good by Infant-circumcision either to the Jewish Church in generall or to the children themselves who were to be circumcised the administration of circumcision unto children was of a morall consideration and had a morall equitie in it self to commend it and they upon whom the duty of the said administration at any time and in reference to any person lay should have sinned against the Law of charitie to neglect it Now there being the same or as much reason to judge as hath been formerly argued and may be further in due time that God by Infant baptism intendeth spirituall good either unto the Infants themselves who are or should be baptized or to the Christan Churches respectively as that he did intend the like good either to the circumcised Infants or Church of the Jews by Infant circumcision it roundly follows that Infant Baptism notwithstanding Mr. A's opinion to the contrary is of a morall consideration and in this respect of a readie perception and deduction from the example of Infant-circumcision yea and that they who do deprive their children of it walk uncharitably towards them and deserve reproof according to the saying of Beza a Baptismus sine impietatis scelere contemni nequit gravissimam reprehensionem coram Deo hominibus merentur qui tantum beneficium differunt vel sibi vel suis liberis accipere Beza Opnsc. p. 334. Baptism cannot without the great sin of impietie be despised and they deserve a most severe reproof both before God and men who delay the reception of so great a benefit either for themselves or THEIR CHILDREN So that things duly and unpartially considered Mr. A's Objection is too hard for his Answer the spirit of the former is the greater spirit And thus we see that his minor Proposition which he hath been all this while labouring in the fire to make straight remains as yet crooked His two former probations have afforded no Protection at all to it But it may he hath kept his best wine to the last and his third Answer will recover the credit which his two former have lost Let us therefore with patience and without partialitie hear and consider what this hath to say unto us Another thing by which it may appear that Infant-baptism is not agreeable to the Gospell-ministration is in that it M. A. p. 34. differs from it in this propertie of it viz. as it is a ministration of the spirit for so it is called 2 Cor. 3. 8. It 's the ministration of the spirit in two respects 1. because in and by this ministration the spirit is given unto men 2. Because the worship and service which God receives from men under it is or ought to be more spirituall then that was under the Law in both which respects Infant-Baptism will be found disagreeable to it I answer Sect. 145. 1. This argument or probat is to be commended in this before either of the former it promiseth full and undertakes home in the cause of the Proposition to be secured the Proposition as we heard being this Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the ministration of the New Testament Now his first proof undertook for no more but to prove Infant-Baptism not simply disagreeable but only lesse agreeable to this ministration His second that Infant-Baptism as he might well fuppose savors strongly of the Legall ministration But this proof it be as good as its word will prove Infant-Baptism simply and right-down disagreeable to the said ministration But 2. Whereas he attempts to prove this disagreeablenesse by this argument viz. that it differs from it in one particular prop●rtie his attempt amounts to no more then the beating of the ayr For what though it should differ from it in two properties which are more then one yet if it agree with it in others especially in more why should it not be judged rather or more agreeable with it then disagreeable yea one