them sufficient till I hear from Mr. T. the contrary Answ. I have made it appear that these rules are not sufficient to make good the proof from analogy disproved by me nor was it formerly uncertain to me they are not sufficient yet I might say truly it is uncertain whether these rules be sufficient whether there be no need of any more to satisfie others who may think them too few as well as otherwise imperfect I for my part do judge them notwithstanding Mr. Blakes plea to be insufficient and all arguments inferring duty as of Gods appointment in the use of a rite of the New Testament from some likeness or agreement with a rite of the Old Testament now abolished without direction in the New as frivolous and serving onely to make wrangling fill people with superstitions and to weary Scholars as I say in the Addition to my Apology in answer to Mr. Baillee sect 15. Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part 4. ch 1. against Dr. Sanderson saying Divine right or institution is that First which is properly and primarily such as what is first enjoined by express ordinance of God or secondly what may be deduced therefrom by evident illation Secondly that which is secondarily and consequently such To which four things say they are required 1. equity 2. analogy 3. insinuations in the new Testament 4. continued practice of the Church speaks thus But this proceeding seems not sufficient 3. There are things now in common use which have all the four conditions and yet he will not say they are Divine institutions as the observation of Easter c which yet are confessedly but Ecclesiasticall And will Mr. Cawdrey make a Divine institution of Infant baprism which in the next page he saith we have no express command nor express example of it in Scripture from grounds which at most can make but analogy without equity for in meer positive rites there is no equity but the appointers will insinuations in the New Testament or any truly wel proved continued practice of the Church However Mr. Cawdreys words are sufficient to shew though they oppose himself that he counted analogy not sufficient no not though accompanied with equity insinuations in the New Testament and continued practice of the Church to make a thing of Divine institutution but only Ecclesiastical Which being granted Mr. Marshals analogical argument as he calls it which with him the words of the Assembly intimate to be the chief prop of the Divine institution of Infant baptism falls to the ground But le ts hear what Mr. B. saith also What need saith Mr B. the same thing to be done twice except men had questioned the authority of the old Answ. The Holy Ghost hath delivered many things twice in the Old and New Testament yet sure it was needful else it is not likely it would have been done Will Mr. B. charge the Spirit of God with needless committing so many histories sayings of Christ c. to writing because they were written before And to his question I say If there were no other need yet there was this that the agreement of the Old and New Testament might appear whereby the authority of both is greatly confirmed The whole Scripture saith he is the perfect Word and Law of God and if he should reveal all his mind in one part what use should we make of the other Answ. The Gospels of the four Evangelists are the perfect Word and Law of God they need no unwritten tradition for a supplement in them those things are written by which we may have life John 20. 31. yet there is use of Pauls Epistles Suppose all Gods mind revealed in one part so as no more doctrine or truth were in the rest than in one yet there is use to confirm explain inforce that which is elsewhere written in that one part And indeed this reasoning of his would prove that book or part of Scripture to be of no use as suppose Marks Gospel which is counted an a bridgement of another or so much of that Gospel as reveals no more of Gods mind than another doth which me thinks Mr. B. on better consideration should disclaim He goes on How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy which made the Anabaptists of old deny it Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a king a Parliament man or Justice of Peace or the like so of an oath before a Magistrate of war of the Sabbath c. how sparing is the new Testament and why but because there was enough said of them in the old This also is the very case in the question in hand Answ. The Anabaptists as they are called of former times or some of them as it is reported for their own books I never saw of them denied it lawful for Christians to be Magistrates to war to swear not onely because of the silence thereof in the New Testament but also because they mistook the meaning of the texts as forbidding them Is. 2. 4. Micah 4. 3. Zach. 9. 10. Iohn 18. 36. Mat. 20. 26. Mat. 5. 34 35. Luke 22. 25 26. c. And so either did or seemed to do some of the Antient Christians even those who are called the Fathers of which may be seen Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanct lib. 6. annot 25 26. And yet learned men do not think the New Testament silent of a Christian Magistrate of an oath or war but that there are texts for them in the New Testament of which some are brought by Grot. l. 1. de Iure Belli ac Pacis c. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 1. c. And though there be no example of a Christian King Parliament man or Justice of Peace yet we find a Christian Centurion Act. 10. a Christian Deputy Act. 13. 12. Christian parents husbands masters whose government is allowed and rules given about the managing of it Wherefore I conceive Mr. B. doth too much betray Christian Magistracy souldiery civil judicature c. who suggests to his Reader as if the New Testament were silent of Christian Magistracy and sparing about war or oaths before a Magistrate I confess the determination of the Old Testament is obligatory because these things are moral not peculiar to the Jews but it doth not follow therefore that an argument is valid from analogy conceived between rites of the old Testament and the new or the Jewish policy and the Christian to conclude an obligation to us in a rite of the New Testament the rites of the Old Testament being meerly positive not from the beginning proper to the Jews and together with the policy of the Jewish Church now abrogated But there seems to be more difficulty about the Sabbath Mr. Marshall had said in his Sermon that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do and must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day In my Examen part 2. sect 8. I denied it
words for I do not say positively as he cites them but comparatively thus for it is more likely that imposition of hands for Ordination which was still in use and to continue to be used should be there meant than laying on of hands for confirmation after baptism of infants which hath no Rule nor Example in Scripture 2. Saith Dr. Homes Those gifts usual onely in that little time of the Apostles were not to be joyned with and put among the first Principles of Christian Religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism or to give an account of their faith after baptism Answ. Those Principles Heb. 6. 1 2. are not sayd to be taught to little ones in age but in knowledg of Christian Religion nor are they sayd to be taught to fit them for baptism or to give account of their faith after baptism they may be principles and a foundation though they were taught them after baptism and to establish themselves rather than to give account to others Now for what reason the knowledg of these might be a part of the beginnings of the Doctrine of Christ to young Christians is given above And there is in the Text that which may induce us to conceive the giving the spirit by laying on of hands meant because v. 4. they that were enlightned which many even of the Ancients understood of baptism commonly called by the Greeks inlightning are sayd to have tasted of the heavenly gift and to be partakers of the Holy Ghost which seems to be meant in respect of these gifts and Paul Acts 19. 2. propounded this as a Catechism question to certain Disciples at Ephesus Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed But I rested not on it because the other of laying on of hands for Ordination seemed to me more likely then 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley It s not likely to be meant of laying on of hands for Ordination 1. Because that 's not fit to be taught younglings children novices as milk Heb. 5. 12. If this be milk viz. the Doctrine of Church-discipline Church-officers Church-goverment c. what shall we call oâ— count strong meat To this was answered that however all the Doctrine about Church-discipline might be unfit to be taught novices yet laying on hands for Ordination being an outward riâ—e of continued use it might be needfull to be taught younglings in Christian profession To this Dr. Homes replies that no ingenuous man weâ—ghing and pondering things will think that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of Christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers To which I say many even of later Writers whom me thinks the Doctor should not deny to be ingenuous men do refer the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. to Ordination Dicson on Heb. 6. 2. Ames Bell. Ener tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. th 8. Cartwright Answ. to Rh. Annot. in locum Thomas Hooker Survey part 1. cap. 1. pag. 7. Noyes the Temple measured pag. 70. Hudson Essence and Unity of the Church pag. 9. and Vindic. pag. 22. Dr. Hammond of the Keys cap. 4. sect 28. Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4 cap. 10. sect 38. recites the opinions of Papists as differing some referring to Confirmation some to Ordination some to giving the Holy Ghost The New Annot. Diodati speak as uncertain to which to refer it Grotius refers it to all rites besides baptism and the Lords Supper in Confirmation Ordination curing the sick reconciling penitents blessing the married and therefore whether little children were taught the Doctrine thereof or no many ingenuous men conceive it meant Heb. 6. 2. 2. Though it might be conceived unfit for little children in age to be taught yet it may nevertheless be fit to be taught younglings in Christianity meant Heb. 5. 12. It seems to me to be as fit to be taught little children as the Doctrine of Confirmation and may be as easily learned by them as the points about the Resurrection of the Dead and eternal Judgment 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley The very putting these two together baptisms and laying on of hands seems in Calvins judgment to import some relation that the one should have to the other as in the other Principles which are by pairs To this I answered that baptism and imposition of hands might be fitly coupled being both Ordinances for initiation the one into the profession of Christianity the other into sacred function To this Dr. Homes replies that imposition of hands initiâ—teâ— but few and that long after they are Church members and that Marriage might better be coupled with baptism or imposition of hands and the Lords Supper Answ. If all this were granted yet the answer stands good that the joyning proves not Mr. Brinsleys sense necessary which is enough for my purpose to shew the insufficiency of his Argument But Dr. Homes thinks to blow away all by avouching his and Mr. Brinsleys interpretation which he cals a naked and honest explication of the Text. And that is that the Doctrine of baptisms is the Doctrine which the catechized of the heathens recited afore their baptism and the Doctrine of laying on of hands was the Doctrine which infants of believers before baptized in their infancy after they were past childhood rehearsed before the Church upon which they were received into the Church by imposition of hands Answ He may well call it a naked interpretation because it is brought into the world without proof there being nothing in the Text for it and all the shew of proof is onely the opinion of some late writers mistaken about the practise of antiquity Yea me thinks if the Doctor with his brethren of the congregational way as it is called did believe this interpretation to be genuine they should admit their infant-sprinkled members by laying on of hands which yet I hear not that they do But against this interpretation are these reasons 1. In it is supposed that the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands is not the Doctrine concerning those rites but the Doctrine recited when those rites were used But the Doctrine then recited being the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment and the profession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God if the Doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of hands be the Doctrine recited by the baptized and confirmed at the use of those rites it will be the same with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment repentance from dead works and faith towards God and so those several principles will be confounded 2. The Doctrine of baptisms was that which in those to whom the Apostles wrote was layd before which is intimated in the words v. 1. not laying again But they were Hebrews therefore not as the Doctor Heathens that recited it at baptism 3. There 's no distinction in the Text as if some recited the Doctrine at baptism and others who had been baptized in infancy recited
express covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul Origen Cyprian and others at large being printed with a ful point at the end are as plain a denial that infants were baptized in the primitive times as words usually express As for the words following I will cite but one for all who was before the rest and that is Justin Martyr speaking of the way of baptizing the aged sayth they are not words if they be restrictive that limit any one 's speech but Justin Martyrs and if by them M B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptizing all that were then baptized the words following saying thus how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you and then setting down the constant way of baptizing without any exception M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antoninum being so plain to prove infant-baptism not to have been then in use among Christians Likewise in my Praecursor Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M Bs. own words mutatis mutandis His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words His Confidence pag. 66. is marvellous I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth 28. inclusively And so I answer that this solemn instition is our warrant requiring us both to disciple nations and baptize Disciples and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples Answ My confidence is upon good reason M Bs. marvelling is from ignorance what he means by taking the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. inclusively I know not except he mean that time when that institution was given as well as the time after or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose For it plainly asserts that what we have no warrant in all the New Testament for we are not to do ordinarily what we have precept and example for we are to do Which if he will stand to then his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church as he sayd before and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptizing professors of faith And then his including here Matth. 28. 19. in his Texts though not brought Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38 41. 8. 12 13 16 36 38. 9. 18. 10. 47 48. 16. 15 33. 18. 8. 19. 3 4 5. Rom. 6. 3 c. he findes not precept or example for baptizing of infants and so if he finde not warrant Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing infants all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. to admit any member into the Church by Baptism but believers by profession but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it as Mr Bs. we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28 to admit any member into the Church without Baptism but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it The consequent then we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule As for his evasion that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed and of Christs Laying of hands on little ones and such like Arguments and Texts he brings yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9. against deniers of Baptism by Water pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof c. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text Matth. 28. 19. and the other Texts before recited Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions that they include not infants and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blinde him as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19. But I proceed Because as he sayth pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given which may make the case plain to some men therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet M. Church and other the chief books and been able at least to himself to confute them you have but discovered a feared conscience a most heavy though vain censure shewing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing which either taketh error for no sin or else dare venture on sin without fear and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture and conference with the able of the opposite party without reading so many Books Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books shewed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction but fly upon them with so deep a charge without any moderation of spirit And when he saith pag. 7. He dare say by my books that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments I reply 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed but if I may use his own words He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice 2. It shews a fond conceit in him of his own arguments which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin Ursin Piscator the Assembly Mr. M. c. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise that I had considered I said
another are his speeches about this thing And yet this salve he adds is not true in any sense in which the word substance may be taken For if he mean by applying the Covenant the signifying Christ to come or the spiritual part promised so Circumcision was a Type or shadow and therefore according to his doctrine belonging to the administration that then was not to the substance of the Covenant if he mean by applying the Conant sealing or assuring the righteousnesse of faith to mens consciences neither doth this make it of the substance of the Covenant the Covenant being made before and though Circumcision had never thus applyed it the substance of the Covenant had been the same yea the Covenant was the same in substance according to his own doctrine 2000. years before Circumcision did apply it to any now I do not conceive any thing is to be said of the substance of a thing when the thing may be entire without it so that in this point I deprehend in Mr. M. speeches nothing but dictates and those very uncertain and confused Secondly saith he pag. 198. When I say that Gods Commands about their Sacraments bind us my meaning never was to assert that the ritual part of their Sacraments do remain in the leasâ— particle or that we are tyed to practise any of those things but onely that there is a general and analogical nature wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament do agree which he thus a little before expresseth my meaning being plainly this that all Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews as touching their general nature of being Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant and as touching their use and end do bind us in our Sacraments because they are the same whereto I reply that Mr. M. supposeth the Commands of God are about the general nature of being Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant which is a most vain conceit there being no such Command or Institution there 's no such Command that Sacraments should have the general nature of Sacraments or be Seals of the Covenant or that they should signifie Christ and seal spiritual grace these things they have from their nature as he saith which is the same without any Institution The natures essences and quiddities of things are eternal invariable and so come not under Command which reacheth onely to things contingent that may be done or not be done Did ever any wise man command to men that man should be a reasonable living body or whitenesse a visible quality or fatherhood a relation And to say that God commands Sacraments to seal the Covenant what is this but to say that God commands himself For he alone by the Sacraments seals to us the Covenant or Promise of Christ or grace by him All Commands of God are concerning what the persons commanded should do and they must needs be of particulars not of generals for actio est singularium action is of singular persons and things Though God may command man to think or acknowledge Sacraments to be Seals of the Covenant yet it were a most vain thing for God to command that Sacraments should be Seals of the Covenant or to have this general end or use to seal or signifie Christ and spititual grace to us which belongs onely to himself to do by his declaration of his meaning in them Such Commands as Mr. M. imagines are a meer Chimaera or dream of his brain Secondly the like is to be sayd concerning his conceit that such Commands bind us in our Sacraments For to bind us is to determine what is to be done or not to be done by us But such imagined Commands do not determine what is to be done or not to be done by us and therefore cannot bind at all Thirdly when Mr. M. confesseth we are not tyed to the least particle of the ritual part or any practise of those things he doth thereby acknowledge that all the Commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews which were all about rituals are quite abrogated For all Sacraments are Rites or Ceremonies and to imagine a Command about a Sacrament and not about a ritual part or Ceremony is to imagine a Command about a Sacrament which is not a Sacrament Chamier Panstr Cathol Tom. 4. lib. 1. chap. 8. Sect. 9. arguing against Suarez the Jesuit that dreamed of a Sacrament appointed in the law of nature for remedy of original sin yet had no determined Ceremony speaks thus Sacramentum aliquod institutum à Deo Ceremonia nulla determinata à Deo quis capiat Sacramentum institui et Ceremoniam non determinari Aequè dixerit loquutum esse deum et tamen vocem nullam protulisse nam aequè Sacramenti genus est Ceremonia et Vox loqisutionis Fourthly were it supposed that there were some Commands about the general nature of Sacraments binding us though every particle and practice of the ritual part be abrogated yet this would not reach Mr. M. intent which is to prove the Command of sealing Infants with the initial seal in force binds But to seal Infants with the initial seal in force is not of the general nature of Sacraments for then it should belong to the after seal as well as the initiating but after his own dictates of the special nature of the initial seal and so Mr. M. principle serves not for his purpose Thirdly I argued thus Examen part 2. sect 8. If we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any Institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example then a certain rule may be set down from Gods word how far a man may go in his conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where he must stay For to use the words of the Author whose book is intituled Grallâ— if Christians must measure their worship according to the Institution and Ceremonies of the Jews it is needfull that either they imitate them in all things or else that some O Edipus resolve this riddle hitherto not resolved to wit what is moral and imitable in those Ceremonies and what not But out of Gods word no rule can be framed to resolve us how far we must or may not go in this conceived parity of reason equity or analogy Ergo. The major is evinced from the perfection of Gods word and the providence of God to have the consciences of his people rightly guided The minor is proved by provoking those analogists that determine from the Commands about the Mosaical Rites and usages what must be done or may not be done about the meer positive worship and Church-order of the New Testament to set down this rule out of Gods word This argument is confirmed by experience in the controversie between Presbyterians and Independents jarring about the extent of Infant-baptism the Elders in new England Mr. Hooker besides Mr. â—irmin Mr. Bartlet
of petulancy to insinuate that of me in which my Apology Sect. 4. might have undeceived him though it were not then so easie to discern that error as now after so much debating of it did not pride prejudice fear or some other partial affection hinder And for Mr. Bs. conceit of his grounds though I neither finde them easie nor plain yet it is no marvel others discern not how infant-baptism can be inferred from them which can at most prove a reasonableness of the thing as Mr. Bedford Dr. Field Dr. Hammond and others speak but not an institution of God which must be gathered from precept or example in the N. T. and can onely warrant our practice as the minde of God in meer positives about worship in the New Testament In the explication of his second Proposition pag. 10. he again objects my speech that Mr. Ms. Principle on which he establisheth his Proof from Circumcision for infant-baptism is one of the first condemned Heresies by which I meant that Proposition which he hath in his Sermon pag. 35. that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidental to them in which thus much is maintained that some part of the command of Circumcision and the other Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did the Jews which is expresly condemned Acts 15. 24. as subverting the souls of the Gentiles and is called the heresie of the false Apostles by the Century-writers Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 5. and others condemn it under the title of Judaism But then saith Mr. B. Mr. M. is an Heretick with me and all the Divines in the world that go his way To which I answer This inference hath too much shew of Sycophancy being urged so often and to the People of Bewdly my quondam Auditors For 1. though I say that Doctrine is such an Heresie yet I do not say Mr. M. still holds it as his words did import yea I did acknowledg in my Apology pag. 99. and in this writing Sect. 2. that Mr. M. doth deny that we are tied to any practise of the ritual part which is indeed to retract his former speech in his Sermon 2. But were it tru that he did still hold it yet it would not follow that he were an Heretick with me For 1. I should not take him to be an Heretick that holds that Doctrine which is Heresie if it were not so directly but onely by consequence not heeded as this of his is 2. Nor do I take him to be an Heretick that doth hold that which is Heresie directly except he hold it in or with a party made to maintain it And therefore I do once more protest against Mr. Bs. calumniatory inference and deny that I account Mr. M. an Heretick and yet I account still his Principle mentioned if it were held as the words in the Sermon did import to contain one of the first condemned Heresies to wit Judaism To this calumny Mr. B. adds another Because I used the words of the Apostle Acts 20. 26 27. in a Sermon he from the report of his Notary and a multitude of my Auditors likely his tale tellers without sending to me about the truth of it prints what he received from them and thence infers that the baptizing of persons of years notwithstanding their infant-baptism is taken by me for a fundamental point which the salvation or damnation of men doth necessarily depend on Or what I meant to say their bloud be on their own heads he knows not And yet he conceives me to contradict my self when I blame the Papists for making baptism of necessity to salvation To which I reply that herein Mr. B. shews his inconsiderateness or his minde to calumniate or both For 1. he might have interpreted my words as I think when I spake them they were meant in reference to other duties which I had taught them with that of Baptism 2. If it were meant particularly of Baptism yet the threatning I conceive was not to the bare omission but to the omission joyned with opposition 3. I am sure if I did threaten their bloud should be on their head for omission of Baptism it was not simply or barely for the omission but for the omission after teaching and upon supposition of conviction by it of their duty And this I think Mr. B. doth not stick to do to his hearers in case after teaching and supposed conviction by it they practise not a duty though non-fundamental as suppose reproving of their neighbours For then they live presumptuously in sin and such sinning consists not with sincerity and truth of Regeneration And yet this doth not suppose the point in it self fundamental that is such as the meer ignorance of it or the bare omission of it doth damn a person or exclude out of the kingdom of God in which sense I blame the Papists for maintaining a necessity of an infants being baptized to its entering into the kingdom of Heaven But Mr. B. doth not think God lays so great a stress on this point as I and others do Answ. That which I hold is this 1. that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Christ that bindes Christians now as well as in the Apostles days Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Act. 2. 38. 10. 47 48. Ephes. 4. 5. And I detest the audacious impiety of Socinians and those in our days who count themselves above Ordinances that is as Mr. B. well interprets it Plain Scripture Proof c. pag. 24. above obedience to God and so Gods as being one of the most palpable delusions of unsound men in our days who place their perfection in a manifest disobedience to Christs appointment and some of them in an Antichristian presumption as if they sate in the Temple of God and shewed themselves as God do most arrogantly of their own heads without any allowance of God make void the express prime Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ calling it a low dispensation c. I hope I shall have liberty hereafter to shew the frivolous allegations and pretences of these men In the mean time they may see what Mr. Laurence Mr. Bartlet M. B. pag. 341. of this his Book have written for these Ordinances 2. I hold that every Minister of the Gospel is bound as to preach the Gospel so to baptize those that are made Disciples Matth. 28. 19. 3. That every believing Christian is by necessity of precept tied to be baptized that is dipped in water in testimony of his profession of Christ his Lord upon his being made a Disciple of Christ Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Acts 2. 38. 22. 16. 4. That this is ordinarily where and when it may be had without unmercifulness defect of water or some other like reason a necessary means of salvation Mark 16. 16. 1 Pet. 3.
both determined in the Synod and therefore both decreed against and so the doctrine is the yoke in respect of the yoakers and the judgment and practise in respect of the yoaked 4. Saith Mr. B. It was the Church of Antioch and not the false Teachers that sent to Ierusalem for resolution 5. And it was to the brethren and not to the false Teachers that the Synod did direct their letters and decrees therefore it was the Disciples practise that is more directly decreed against or at least as much than the Doctrine of the Teachers Answ. Be the Conclusion granted yet the Doctrine is decreed against and consequently is meant by the yoke v. 10. even according to Mr. Bs. argument That which the Synod did decree against was the yoke here meant But doth not Mr. B. in these words plainly intimate that Disciples are the same with brethren to whom the letters were directed which sure were not infants It is true the Church of Antioch and not the false Teachers sent to Jerusalem for resolution and that the letters were directed not to the false Teachers but brethren called believers Acts 21. 25. yet they sent about the false Teachers Doctrine and the decree and speech were against that Doctrine even as the decrees or Canons of Councils are against the doctrine of Heretikes though sent to the Churches From all which I infer that Mr. Bs. reasoning is frivolous and while he opposeâ—h iâ— his own arguments prove that the Doctrine of the false Teachers is the yoke But he hath not yet done 6. Saith he If it were granted as Mr. T. would have it that it is onely putting on the yoke that is here expressely decreed against and the yoke or practise it self but onely by consequence then he would make this Synod so weak as to leave the matter imperfect and obscure which they were to determine expresly and perhaps it might put him hard to it to prove that consequence For it will not alway follow that what may not be taught may not be practised as I could shew in several cases Answ. I hold the Synod to decree expressely against the yoke understanding by it the Doctrine of the necessity of Circumcision the obligation and opinion of its necessity and the puâ—ting of the yoke that is the Teaching this Doctrine to Disciples and by consequence against the Gentiles believing Parents practice of circumcising their Infants as of duty nor do I know how any other way Mr. B. can gather it from the Epistle of the Synod than as I do sure in all the Epistle I finde not any other way to prove Gentile believers are not bound to circumcise their children but by urging the words v. 24. 28. 29 in which parents are not discharged of circumcising infants expresly in so many words But by consequence And yet the matter is not left imperfect or obscure but there is an express determination against that which was the occasion of the Synod to wit the Doctrine of the false Teachers v. 24. nor is the consequence hard to infer if the Apostles give no command to the Gentile parents to be circumcised and to keep the Law then parents are not tied to circumcise their infants there being no necessity or duty to them who have no command or burden put on them Mr. B. mistakes in conceivng I framed the consequence thus What the false Apostles might not teach the parents might not practice And therefore though he could shew in many more cases than he can that it will not alway follow that what may not be taught may not be practiced the consequence as I frame it may be clear the determination of the Synod express and perfect But he adds 7. And me thinks we may be allowed to prove baptism of infants by consequence if this Synod assembled of purpose about Circumcision and the Law did yet leave them nothing but consequence against it Answ. I never said that the Synod left nothing but consequence against Circumcision and the Law nor did I disallow at any time the proving of infants baprism by consequence but have often declared the contrary though Mr. M. most unbrotherly charged me with it pag. 3. of his Defence but absolved me of it pag. 205. as I shew in my Apology sect 11. and in my Praecursor sect 8. But having so long expected some proof by consequence for infant-baptism and finding upon trial in so many Authors as have occurred nothing worth the name of a proof I conclude there is no such thing but that Paedobaptists and none more than Mr. B. do onely gull the world and which is more to be detested the godly and of those many that are teachers of others with flourishes and shews instead of proof in so much as some who are of able parts magnifie his book about infants baptism as excellent whether it be out of rashness or for advantage sake to themselves finde it upon strictest examination to be but a meer cheat But Mr. B. hath one string more to his Bowe 5. Further saith he that it was Circumcision it self as needfull and as engaging to Moses Law which is here meant is plain in Gal. 5. 1 2 3. No doubt either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with those or their companions teaching the same Doctrine and therefore Paul there decideth the same cause and mark what he cals the yoke Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every mâ—n that is circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole Law Is not he wilfull that yet will say the yoke is onely the Doctrine of the false Teachers and not Circumcision as engaging to keep the Law Answ. 1. Mr. B. before p. 17. said that it is evident the doctrine is not the yoke here when he saith Is not he wilfull that yet will say that the yoke is onely the doctrine of the false Teachers He doth plainly intimate that he excepts not against the holding the yoke to be the Doctrine but the holding it to be onely the Doctrine of the false Teachers which is me thinks to contradict himself and to overthrow what he contends for to wit the yoke is that which was put on infants but the Doctrine was not put on infants and therefore if the Doctrine were in part the yoke and this not put on infants then the yoke was not put on infants then it is not absurd for me to expound the yoke of the Doctrine of the false Teachers and his Arguments against that Exposition are answered by his own concession 2. If it be true that either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with these false Teachers Acts 15. 1. or their companions teaching the same Doctrine then it is most false which Mr. B. teacheth pag. 16. It was true and
were onely doctrine it was put on none but those that could be taught Whereto I reply he may as well deny the Snow to be white as deny it Can any put Doctrine but on Persons that can be taught What is this but to hold that a Person may have Doctrine put on him that cannot be taught which is a meer contradiction all one as to say He may be taught that cannot be taught But he will forsooth give us some Reason of his denial as wise as the rest For 1. by putting he confesseth is meant an endeavour to put therefore it must be more than the bare doctrine Answ. 1. I confess not by putting is meant an endeavour to put though I confess that Peter accuâ—eth them onely of their endeavour to put the yoke 2. If I had confessed it yet Mr. Bs. Reason is foolish for it would rather follow that it is less than bare Doctrine the endeavour to put being less than putting Yet it is not true that I said The yoke notes bare Doctrine without any other effect but that the yoke notes doctrine command opinion of obligation and necessity and perhaps disquietness trouble care fear consequent However they that put the yoke by teaching did put doctrine on whom they put the yoke the putting the yoke being nothing but teaching That which follows And if by doctrine they prevail to perswade the people of the necessity of practice in so doing they put on them the both the mis-belief and mis-practice is as little to purpose For 1. to put on them the misbelief is to put on them the doctrine for doctrine is put on by being learned or believed 2. They that do prevail do put on the mispractice it may be in the event but not barely by their putting on their doctrine for it may be they may both teach and that effectually so as that the person do learn or mis-believe and yet not mis-practice through many intervenient impediments yea though he do mis-practice yet the mis-practice is not the terminus of his teaching nor is he the mis-practicer it is not his act logically or physically though it be his morally that is the fault of it be imputed to him as arising from the Doctrine be taught However if it be by perswading and by producing mis-belief and mis-practice they onely are the subjects of it who mis-believe and mis practice which being not verified of infants they are not meant by Disciples on whom the yoke is put But Mr. B. gives a Reason of his denial of the latter consequence and it is this 2. The latter consequence is as false For he that perswadeth a parent to circumcise himself and his childe doth as properly put that burden of Circumcision on the childe as on the parent Though he teach onely the parent yet by teaching the parent he puts the burden on both Answ. 1. If the putting the yoke be Teaching or perswading sure he onely is the subject of his putting the yoke who is the subject of his Teaching as if we say the killing there was wounding by the sword it folows he was not there said to be killed who was not wounded by the sword though it may be true also that another agent by another act may put the burden on one not taught 2. But were Mr. Bs. speech true yet it is nothing to his wiâ—less denial of the later consequence for the consequence is thus if the yoke were onely Doctrine it was put on none but those that could be taught which may be undeniable though it be granted that he that Teacheth onely tho parents yet puts the burden both on parent and child 3. Yea Mr. B. doth grant it by supposing that he Teacheth onely the parent that Doctrine is put onely on the parent For what is it to put Doctrine on any but to Teach him And therefore if the yoke were onely Doctrine sure it was put on none but such as could be taught unless we imagine that Doctrine can be put on those that cannot be taught which is all one in my apprehension as to say they may be taught who cannot be taught And therefore if there be any silly wranglings in the dispute between us sure Mr. B. doth wrangle here either as a silly man or as a most perverse man in denying this consequence and in his whole arguings about this Text when confessing the yoke to be not onely the Doctrine but the judgment and practise also of Circumcision and that the false Teachers would put it onely by Teaching yet doth imagine he can perswade his reader to be so silly as to conceive that they did any thing to infants or that infants are any of those Disciples mentioned Acts 15. 10. And here I shall inforce the arguments of my Antidote sect 6. The first is ad hominem He counts it a heinous offence that I take the word holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. in a different sense than it is used six hundred times in the Scripture and yet â—e takes the word Disciple used three hundred times in the New Testament and of those about one hundred in Lukes writings for one that is a Disciple by owning a Teacher and his Doctrine in another sense oâ— rather nonsense acception for one that is a Disciple in title incompleat without actual learning for present that is for a meer relative without a foundation and brings no place in any Author for this sense but this and therefore I may more justly use his conjuâ—ing speech p. 83. requiring men that are not of desper 〈◊〉 resolutions and prostituted consciences to consider faithfully how they can answer the Lord Christ for perverting so solemn an institution as that is Matth. 28. 19. by their baby sprinkling when the very words of Christ practise of the Apostles constant use of the word Disciples throughout the New Testament common consent of Interpreters shews Christ appointed Disciples onely to be baptized ordmarily who were made such by preaching the Gospel upon pretence that infants are called Disciples Acts 15. 10 in a sense different from what Luke useth it elsewhere even in the precedent and following chapters and that sense or rather nonsense self-contradicting acception devised of late by Mr. B. without any ancient Author I know or any reason from the Text. That which Mr. B. replies is as frivolous 1. He saith infants are called Disciples Acts. 11. 26. They are there part of Christians and Disciples but this is false there 's not a word in the Text that soundes to this sense that infants are any part of the Christians or Disciples there mentioned yea there is that which is plainly to the contrary v. 29. Then the Disciples every manaccording to his ability determined to send relief to the brethren If every one of the Disciples determined to send and no infants determined to send relief then no infants are part of the Disciples 2 Saith he the case is not alike In 1. Cor. 7. 14. I argued about the
referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
more considerable that all the three former Evangelists make full mention of these passages of Christ and therefore it is evident that they were not taken for small circumstantials but Doctrines of moment for the Churches information They are recorded also in Matth. 18. 2 3 4 c. Matth. 19. 13 14. Luke 9. 47. Luke 18. 16 17. I desire any tender conscienced Christian that is in doubt whether infants should be admitted members of the visible Church and would fain know what is the pleasure of Christ in this thing to reade over the Texts impartially and considerately and then bethink himself whether it be more likely that it will please Christ better to bring or solemnly admit infants into the Church or to shut them out and whether these words of Christ so plain and earnest will not be a better plea at Judgment for our admitting infants than any that ever the Anabaptists brought will be to them for refusing them Answ. Mr. B. wanting proof fals here to his Rhetorick which elsewhere he falsly chargeth on me as my fault but is indeed the chief part of his Book and prevails much with the most of Readers But it is the property of childish persons to be affrighted with such mormo's I grant that the passages of Christ were by the Evangelists taken not for small circumstantials but Doctrines of moment for the Churches information yet not teaching infants visible Church-membership and baptism What ever Christian I be I have read over the Texts impartially and considerately as I think this and other writings shew and I do declare in the presence of God that these passages do confirm me in this truth that it is not the will of Christ that infants should be baptized because he neither baptized nor appointed these to be baptized and that the words of Christ here are so impertinent that they are more likely to be a plea against infant baptizers who on such weak conjectures go against the plain institution of Christ Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. 16. and the constant use of the Apostles and first ages And I do further declare that on my most serious studies I do resolve notwithstanding the evasions they bring that the plea they make hence for infant baptism and that which is alleaged of their being Disciples visible Church-members in the Covenant doth as well tie them to admit them to the Lords supper as to baptism and that in refusing to admit them to baptism we have as good a plea and better at Judgment then they have in refusing to admit them to the Lords Supper Nor is it to me any other than a sad sign either of injudiciousness or slothfulnes in searching after the truth or prejudice or adhering to mens sayings out of reverence of their persons or faction or some such like evil quality both in Ministers and people even those of tender consciences that they still retain so gross an abuse as infant baptism is upon such weak reasons as they do and neglect yea and oppose the baptism of believers so manifestly Commanded by Christ and practised by his Apostles But I must follow Mr. B. But what saith Mr. T. against this why 1. He saith it was some extraordinary blessing to them that Christ intended Apol. p. 149. Answ. 1. it was a discovery of their title to the Kingdom of Heaven It was such an extraordinary blessing that included the ordinary If extraordinary blessing theâ— much more ordinary 2 It was such as the Disciples should have known that these should be admitted to or else Christ would not have been displeased Answ. It is true I give this reason why I conceive that of such included those infants as conceiving from the circumstances of the thing that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them and declaration concerning them And in my Examen pag. 147. I say Christs action in this business is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therfore yeilds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing infants by the ordinary Ministery no more than Christs whipping buyers out of the Temple though related by the four Evangelists for an ordinary practise answerable thereto Now this is not denied by Mr. B. But he says it was such an extraordinary blessing as included the ordinary if extraordinary blessing then much more ordinary But 1. these things are said without proof 2. Their falshood is shewed and the rest is answered before He adds But Mr. T. saith Apol. pag. 151. That the reason of Christs anger was their hindring him in his design not the knowledg they had of their present visible Title this is but a dream To which I answer 1. Mr. T. is as bold to speak of Christs thoughts without Book and to search the Searcher of hearts as if he were resolved to make Christs meaning be what he would have it 2. What Design was it that Christ had in hand Was it any other than the discovery of his mercy to the species of infants and to those among others and a presenting them as a Patern to his followers and to teach his Church humility and renovation and to leave them an assurance against Anabaptists that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him Answ. 1. There was no such boldness in my speech as Mr. B. rashly and like a calumniator chargeth me with but such as must be granted true if we conceive Christ to have acted as a rational being that propounds an end or design in his actings 2. The last of the designs Mr. B. mentions assuring that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him meaning by not baptizing them is his figment His design I knew without searching Christs heart immediately by reading his facts which shew his ends to be 1. the blessing those infants 2. Teaching Doctrine concerning such 3. Shewing himself thereby the great Prophet of his Church and bestower of blessings 3. Saith Mr. B. How did the Disciples hinder Christs design Not by hindring him immediately but by rebuking those that brought the infants 4. If this were no fault in them why should Christ be displeased and much displeased at it And how could it be their fault to hinder people from bringing infants to Christ if they might not know that they ought to be admitted And could they know of Christs private intents and designs Were there but this one consideration hence to be urged I duâ—st challenge Mr. T. to answer as far as modesty would permit a challenge that is if Christ had intended onely that humility or docibleness should be commended from these infants as an Emblem to his Disciples then it could be none of their fault to forbid bringing of them to Christ for how could they know what use Christ would make of them or by what Emblem he would teach them or when he would do it All the creatures in the world may be Emblems of some good and must they
deductions after and the constant exposition of interpreters The Apostles Doctrine before is to disswade the Galatian Christians from affecting to be under the Law v. 21. as the false teachers endeavoured to perswade them And to that end he teacheth them the allegory of Hagar and Sarah and their children Hagar and Sarah represent two Covenants the one of the Law the other of Righteousness by Faith and the Children represent the one the Justiciaries that seek Righteousness by the Works of the Law and are tenacious of that Covenant the other bellevers in Christ who seek Righteousness by Faith in him and stick to the new Covenant of Grace in which is promised the Just shall live by Faith The former Covenant is a Covenant of Bondage and the Children thereof are in bondage with their Mother that is they are not to inherit the promise of Righteousness but the later Covenant is free and her Children are free-born heirs of Righteousness And though the former Covenant had many Children while the Jewish Church stood the greatest part resting in the Law and expecting their righteousness in observing it yet the new Covenant that was as barren having none or very few that were born of it there being but few that looked for redemption by the Messiah or the consolation of Israel but followed the Pharises Doctrine of conceiving themselves righteous by keeping the Law now being made known to all Nations by preaching the Gospel hath many more children than the old innumerable believers of the Gentiles as well as the Jews embraciâ—g the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning righteousness by faith and of this sort are we sayth the Apostle v. 28. But it happens to us as of old as Ishmael persecuted Isaac so now the carnal Jews who are Justiciaties persecute us who are believers And then follow deductions one that it is Gods sentence to reject Justiciaries as not heirs of righteousness v. 30. Another the assâ—rting the estate of believers to be a state of freedom v. 31. and hereupon exhorts cap. 5. 1. that they should stâ—nd fast in their liberty wherein Christ hath made them free and not be again intangled with the yoke of bondage to wit the Law and legal Covenant And that the constant exposition of Interpreters is for the sense according to the supplement made by me and not according to Mr. Bls. conceit may appear by alleging some of their words Hieronym Comment in Epist. ad Galat. lib. 2. cap. 4. thus paraphraseth the words Sicut ergo tum major frater Ishmael lactentem adhuc parvulum persequebatur Isaac sibi circumcisionis praerogativam sibi primogenita vendiâ—ans ita nunc secundum carnem Israel adversus minorem fratrem de gentibus populum Christianum sustollitur inflâ—tur erigâ—tur Consideremus insaniam Judaeorum qui Dominum interfecere Prophetas Apostolos persecuâ—i sunt adversantur voluntatâ— Dei videbimus multo majores persecutiones quas nos etiam historiae docent à Judaeis in Christianos quà m à genâ—â—bus concitatas Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gorran It a nunc illi scilicet qui secundum carnem vivunt ut Judaei haeretici per sequuntur eos qui secundum spiritum scilicet Christianos omnes bonos Perkins com upon Galat. 4. 29. These words are an answer to an objection on this manner We are hated of the Jews and therefore we are not the children of promise The answer is two fold one in this verse thus No marvel this is the old fashion it was thus in Abrahams family For Ishmael born after the â—lesh persecuted Isaac born after the Spirit and so it is at this day Pareus Comment in Gen. 21. 12 Illusio Ismaelis adversus fraâ—rem significat filios carnis persecutionem intentâ—re filiis promissionâ—â— Pâ—scator schol in locum Ita nunc carnalis Israel spiritua em persequitur Grot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic nunc Judaei illis ritibus addicti quos vultis imitari maximo odio prosequuntur Christianos Diodati Annot. ad Gal. 4. 29. But as this singular privilege hath a condition joyned unto it like unto that which happened unto Isaac who was scorned by Ishmael Gen. 21. 9. that is to say that all Christians are likewise persecuted by the Jews Diâ—son Cum enim in Abrahami familâ—a is qui naturae vi ordinariâ tantum genitus est persequutus est eum qui divinitus spirituali ratione est genitus Quid mirum si idem nunc usu veniat nobis Trapp Com. on the place Even so it is now And so also it is now may we say at this day For what do Papists persecute us for else but because we reject their justification by works which being determined I infer that Mr. Bls. arguing includes many absurdities 1. That when it is sayd Even so it is now and the term they that are born after the flesh is to be supplied he by being born after the flesh means Birth by natural genoration of infants born of Christian Parents in which are many gross absurdities 1. That he understands this sayd of infants which must then be sayd to persecute 2. That he takes being born after the flesh in the later part to note natural birth but that is clean besides the Apostles meaning who considers persons born after the flesh not as born by humane members and seed but as born by a fleshly covenant Otherwise it should import no Allegory contrary to the Apostles speech v. 24. which tels us these things are an Allegory that is do speak or declare some other thing than the narration according to the Grammar-sense imports and that is to be born according to the fleshly covenant that is to imbrace the Doctrine of that covenant 3. That to be born after the flesh should import birth of Abraham as a believer and so natural generation of each childe of a believer in that respect but then to be born after the flesh would be common to Isaac with Ishmael to him that is born after the spirit of the free woman by promise with him that is born after the flesh of the bond woman for to be born of Abraham or a believer agrees also to Isaac to him that is born after the spirit of the free woman by promise whereas to be born after the flesh is taken in a sense from which Isaac and we that is Paul and other Christian believers are excluded For he infers v. 31. Therefore brethren we are not the children of the bond woman which is all one with this We are noâ— born after the flesh as it is expressed v. 23. whence it is apparent that being born after the flesh doth onely import the birth of the bond woman generation by Abraham being not considered in this thing 4. Mr. Bl. doth quite pervert the Apostles intent in taking to be born after the flesh to import an honour and that it implies two things 1. A birth of nature a
meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all that I know interpreters besides himself they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now do note legal Justitiaries who are there called the children of the bond-woman not called Abrahams seed for those he had determined before to be those of the faith Gal. 3. 9. Christs v. 29. nor to inherit but cast out he on the contrary makes them Abrahams seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9. And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh Whereas the term born after the flesh is taken in the worser part precisely from the birth from the bond-woman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege but a privation of privilege As for Mr. Bayn though he interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham and proves there that it notes not legal Justitiaries because it is applyed to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things 1. In that he saith Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of a natural seed yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges 2. That he makes his exposition of children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8 to be his exposition of those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. whereas he expresly saith though children of the flesh in some other Scripture which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not onely a Type of Justitiaries Gal. 4. 23 29. but also Rom. 9. 7 8 9. and Isaac a Type of believers in both places and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justitiaries and believers but of uncalled and called non-elect and elect and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brethre◠from the later which to me seems not right for me thinks the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have this sense that the thing he had sayd before did not onely appear in Ishmael and Isaac but also more fully in Esau and Jacob which me thinks imports that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob which he did by Ishmael and Isaac and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10 to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not onely so but also they being connexive particles and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis But Cameron and all others I know understand by those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4 29. legal Justitiaries Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism c. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law which as it bego◠by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation My fourth exception was whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants to be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a childe interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this If Mr. Tombs his Gloss borrowed from Arminius must stand for the sense of the place that to be born of the flesh is to be under the covenant of works then it will hardly be avoided but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature according to the flesh then the Argument is valid Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. than I do is shewed above yet if it were true that he did as Mr. Bl. mis-allegeth him interpret born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9. 8. he conceived this term children of the flesh to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him And for that he sayth I borrow my Gloss from Arminius I answer I have shewed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words and have the concurrent judgment of many Divines of best note to whom it is no disparagement that in this Arminius joyns SECT XXIII Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled THere is another Text to wit Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob pag. 76. c. which if their arguing were good would not onely prove the practice of infant-baptism but also that it is a principle of Christianity and part of the foundation The arguing is to this effect If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptized in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent The Antecedent is proved by parts 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit For then the knowledg of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledg which is absurd To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledg those gifts being though by extraordinary power yet frequent in those days and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ that he was the Son of God and shewed that he was gone up to the Father else the Spirit had not descended it was it by which the world was rebuked and the Saints established To this sayth Dr. Homes that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination because it was still in use and to continue to be used Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my