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
is put but refers us to another place which his Reader must seek and when he hath sought all his book he shall find but one text Acts 15. 10. and that miserably abused by him Of which in its place Thirdly That he acknowledgeth page 92 and here that the denomination is from the disciples act of learning yet will have it imagined that an infant may be a disciple without his own actual learning onely from his belonging to Christ by Gods covenant and mens destination and devoting to learn hereafter But it is to me unconceivable that the denomination which is from the act inherent in the person should be without the act inherent in the person from some acts of another and those acts not putting the form denominating in actual being yea when oftentimes the form denominating is never in act For by Mr. Bs. doctrine Gods covenant and mans devoting make a disciple and yet I think notwithstanding the covenant and mans devoting many thousands yea the most part of infants whom he would have baptized never actually learn by reason of death or disaffection yea many expresly renounce it Were Gods covenant absolute to every true believers infant that he shall be a disciple yet for the present it doth put nothing actually in the person to whom the promise is made no more than election doth put actually any thing in the elected Praedestinatio niâ— ponit in praedestinato Aq. p. 1. q. 23. art 2. Gods purpose of a thing doth not put it in being Mr. Bl. Vindic. foed pag. 89. Most truly Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part 2. cap. 2. Election doth neither make a man holy but only inâ—eâ—â—ionally nor give him actual Church right And this may in like manner be said concerning Gods promise or covenant by it self considered it doth assure something for the future but put nothing in present being The covenant is to a person afore he is born as to Isaac and Jacob shall it be said that afore they were born they were actually disciples and had actual Church right I confesse they might be called disciples or believers in possibility but not actually Gods election and promise denominate a man elected and a child of the promise which are terms of the same extent Rom. 9. 8. but not justifyed converted regenerated or actually a believer disciple or visible Church member But this is yet more in consistent with Mr. Bs. bypotheses who when he assigns the covenant which he will have to make an infant actually a disciple makes it onely the conditional covenant of grace as I shall shew hereafter and that covenant is upon condition of faith and this he will have to belong to all men whether believers or unbelievers and me thinks he should not say all men are actually disciples visible Church members though God hath made that covenant with them which he seals in baptism which he often saies to be only the conditional covenant and â—eckons it my prime errour that misleads me in the point of baptism that I make baptism seal the absolute covenant of grace And yet he chargeth Mr. Bedford p. 300. 301. as with an absurdity following his tenet that baptism should seal one covenat to the Father another to the son If then the covenant make not others actually disciples then neither insants Idem quà idem semper facit idem Again a conditional covenant cannot make an actual disciple till the condition which is actual faith be put Conditionale nihil ponit in esse Therfore the coÌ„ditional covenant sealed in baptism cannot make an actual disciple Nor is it to be said the parents faith is the condition of the covenant for the child For 1. it being not the condition of the covenant to the parent that another should believe for him neither is it the condition for the child except Mr. B. will fall into the absurdity he chargeth on Mr. Bedford that one covenant should be to the Father and another to the child sealed in baptism 2. A child the father believing shall be actually a disciple before it is born for a conditional proposition the condition being put becomes absolute Now it is his child and he believing afore it is born Ergo. In like manner it may be said of anothers devoting or destinating an infant to be a disciple that is no act of the person denominated it can only make a disciple intentionally a persons devoting is but his wish or desire or promise and shall that make a child actually a disciple yea destinating and devoting is before the child is conceived or born as Hannah did devote Samuel was Samuel therefore actually a disciple and visible Church-member afore he was born many of those whom the parents destinate and devote to be actual learners in after time yet never are such yea many of them are express disclaimers and opposers of that doctrine shall these be called actual disciples from their parents wish or hopes or promise Again he makes the term disciple applied to an insant to note a relation present actual learning as one end of it intended for the future I confess that disciple notes a relation between the teacher and person taught yet it seems to note a passion as its form or quiddity so that if any should ask who is a disciple I should say one that hath learned and what it is to be discipled it is to be taught or learned and so doth import a passion and is to be put in that predicament and the relation is as they say secundùm dici not secundùm esse But were it granted that the whole essence of a disciple did consist in relation I would fain know what shall be the foundation of his relation Logicians say To relation there is requisite a foundation as begetting two terms as Father and Son and a respect arising between them from that foundation as fatherhood It is an unheard-of thing that a relation should be without a foundation a Father without begerting an actual Father without actual begetting It is true a man may be p 〈…〉 lly a Father without actual begetting but to make an actual F 〈…〉 without actual begetting is oppositum in opposito Mr. B. Saints everlasting est part 1. 〈◊〉 8. sect 2. To be the people of God without regeneration is as impossible as to be the natural children of men without generation Now what should be the foundation of the relation of a Disciple of Christ but learning of Christ of an actual Disciple but actual learning I know not Future learning being acording to Mr. B. the end intended is not in being perhaps will never be and therefore it is in my apprehension a most illogical and absurd conceit which Mr. B. hath hatched to obtrude upon us such a notion of a Disciple as supposeth a relation without a foundation and contrary to Grammar to call a person a Disciple who hath learned nothing no not so much as to know or own his Teacher To say a person
both of that age or any other and I allow that Christ meant those and other humble ones and that the term of such is both inclusive including more than those particular little ones and exclusive of those that are not elect or blessed by Christ. And though I maintain by firm Arguments in my Postscript to Mr. Blake sect 20. that by the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matth. 19. 14. or of God as Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. is meant the Kingdom of Glory which Mr. B. denies not yet were it allowed Mr. B. that it is meant of the visible Church it is not true of all infants of believers that of them is the visible Church for infants in the womb as Jacob are of the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church yet not of the visible much less of the species of infants as Mr. B. speaks For then every individual infant should be of the visible Church though the Parents be unbelievers which Mr. B. me thinks should gainsay and therefore there is plain reason necessitating to restrain the speech of Christ as I do 3. Saith Mr. B. When Mr. T. maketh their docibleness the thing intended by Christ he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being Disciples Why may not those be Disciples who are not onely docible but exemplary for their teachableness Answ. Mr. T. tels Mr. B. he did not forget but thinks Mr. B. did not heed The docibleness allowed to infants was in things natural such as are to know the Nurse imitate gestures to be stilled from crying when rebuked c. but not in things spiritual to know Christ to be the Son of God the Messiah c. which are necessary to denominate them Disciples of Christ. Yet such teachableness and humility onely negative in not ambitiously affecting preheminence are sufficient for Christ to propound them as examples or similitudes rather to direct his Disciples to imitate in another kinde Their second Objection saith Mr B. is that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven And I think so too but then if the Kingdom of Heaven belong to such much more a standing as members in the visible Church For what is it to be a member of the Church visible but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven For the Church is but one and the difference respective as I shewed before therefore both visible and invisible both military and triumphant are called in Scripture the Kingdom of Heaven or of God If a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members 〈◊〉 the Church so that this proof is more full for infants Church-membership than if it had been said they may be visibl◠Church-members For it saith much more of them which includeth that Answ. Mr. B. thinks it seems with me that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven that is of Glory or the invisible Church which if true then of no infants but elect is the Kingdom of God for no other are of the invisible Church or enter into the Kingdom of Glory And if so not the the very species of infants but particular persons and of these not all perhaps but a few of the infants of believers perhaps more of the infants of unbelievers are of the Kingdom of God But however he thinks it will follow à majori that if of infants is the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church or Kingdom of Glory then much more they have a standing in the visible Church To which I say 1. If this Argument were good it could onely prove those infants to be of the visible Church who are elect 2. It can prove it onely of those who in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of men do belong to the invisible Church or be known to belong to the invisible Church But no infants in particular are known to belong to the invisible Church nor is there any note whereby any infant in particular may be discerned to be of the invisible Church which may make it seem or appear to the judgment of man Ergo there is no infant no not according to Mr. Bs. own description hath a standing in the visible Church The minor of this Argument I expect should be denied but it will concern them that do deny it to shew us out of Scripture where God hath given us any sign though but probable to judg such an infant to be of the invisible Church of the elect such a one not If any say Gods covenant and the Parents faith I reply God hath plainly declared Rom. 9. 7 8 9 10 12 13 18. that he hath not made any promise to the natural seed of Abraham that he will be their God in respect of saving grace much less to the natural seed of every or any believer of this time but that notwithstanding any covenant he hath made he takes the seed of unbelievers to be his children and leaves the seed of bellevers to be hardened and this appeared plainly in Jacob and Esau of the same Parents believers born together yet one loved the other hated and the Gentiles called when the Jews were rejected We say truly the book of life is a secret which belongs to God who hath hidden it yea hath so ordered it by the strange variations of his calling that his judgments should be unsearchable and his paths past finding out Rom. 11. 33. And therefore no man hath warrant from Gods Word to frame any judgment concerning this or that infant to be of the invisible Church But because Mr. B. says somewhat to prove his consequence let us consider what he brings That which he sayth is 1. The Church is but one and the difference respective 2. He that saith that they belong to the invisible saith much more even that which includeth that they are visible if I understand his obscure expressions Church-members 3. That to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven Answ. 1. It is true the universal Church of the elect is but one and the difference respective yet the difference such that all the invisible are not of the visible Church nor all the visible of the invisible nor by any good consequence can it be made good they that are of the invisible are much more of the visible no not when they are known to be of the invisible Church The first is manifest by instances the spirits of the just made perfect elect persons yet unbegotten yet uncalled called but not yet shewing it are of the invisible Church but not of the visible on the other side secret hypocrites are of the visible but not of the invisible And the last
he added If you ask me what is it that directly or immediatly constituteth them such members I answer their visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ This performed by the parent for them is it on their part supposing Christs title to them and the offer of himself in Covenant Answ. I grant that the visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ doth make the persons so ingaging freely seriously soberly and understandingly visible Church-members But that the parents performing this for the childe doth make the infants such directly and immediately is an assertion not proved by Mr. B. nor is it true nor consistent with the descriptions of the visible Church and sayings about it which Protestants of note give nor doth it as here and elsewhere set down by Mr. B. yield any sure ground to know certainly any particular infant to be a visible Church-member That I may make good these in their order Two things are supposed and one thing named as directly and immediately constituting infants visible Church-members The things supposed are 1. Christs title to them 2. The offer of himself in Covenant to them But there is nothing but ambiguity in these expressions For 1. it is uncertain whether he mean that these are supposed when the parent doth perform the engagement for the childe that Christ hath a title to them and that he doth offer himself in Covenant to them or whether he mean that the parents engagement doth constitute the childe a visible Church member if Christ have a title to it and offer himself in Covenant to it If in the former sense then it had been enough to have mentioned the parents act without that supposition if in the later then what ever the parents act be yet no man is certain of the childes visible Church-membership by it alone without the other two 2. What title of Christ to them he means whether by election and gift of his Father to him or by his Spirit which he that hath not is none of his Rom. 8. 9. or what other title he means I am uncertain 3. What Covenant he means whether the absolute Covenant of grace belonging to the elect or the conditional Covenant to all upon condition of faith or the national Covenant made to Abraham and the people of Israel oâ— what other besides I cannot tell how to determine 4. How the Covenant is offered except by Preaching to them or by some secret work of the Spirit I cannot imagine 5. It is somewhat uncertain whether the external engagement that may make the infant a visible Church-member must not be of a parent that is a real and sincere believer or whether a dogmatical faith serves turn Sure in his plain Scrip. c. chap. 29. part 1. He makes a real faith necessary in the parent to that sanctification without which the childe is not holy that is a visible Church-member 6. Whether he make the parents engagement to constitute immediately infants born or unborn also visible Church-members is uncertain Le ts see what we can gather elsewhere I cannot for present find a place where he more fully expresseth himself than in his plain scrip c. pag. 336. of the first edition whereas saith he some stick at it that I make the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent I answer them 1. That it is evident in all the Scripture that God putteth a very great difference between the children of the faithfull and other mens Which I grant but withall that this is true onely of the sincerely faithfull and not onely inexternal profession and yet not so as to count any a visible Church-member in the Christian Church for the parents faith 2. Saith he that he maketh such promises to them and giveth them such privileges as I have exprest in this Book But if he mean by the promises those of the Covenant of grace I say they are made onely to elect and true believers if other promises of temporal blessings they are not made to the children of meer seeming believers but true believers nor do they at all reach to visible Church-membership or Justification of children These privileges are no where promised to the children of believing Christians though sincere meerly because of their parents faith And therefore that which he adds 3. That this is to them as they are the children of the people who believe is false And when he saith 4. And that he never requireth any condition inherent in the infant that I finde in Scripture yet others conceive an inherent condition required in an infant Heb. 12. 14. and elsewhere But he adds And doth not this plainly tell us that the parents faith is the condition if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the father entering it for him and his Deut. 29. If the parent be not a believer the childe is left out And what other condition can be imagined Answ. If the Scripture had required no inherent condition in the infant yet it had not followed that the parents faith is the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification For there are other ways to wit their election Christs death for them which are a vouched as sufficient to their justification without the consideration either of any inherent condition in the infant or the parents faith Nor is it true that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering it for him and his and that if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out For if it be meant of the Covenant of grace it is most false that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant Esau was the childe of Isaac a believer Ishmael of Abraham yet neither entered into the Covenant of grace neither justified by the parents faith if it were so then they were entered into the Covenant of grace and justified and after outâ—d which infers falling from grace Not is there any such Covenant of visible Church-membership which if the parent be a believer the childe iâ— entered in Nor is there a word Deut. 29. to prove it There is nothing there set down but a narration of Moses his â—enewing the Covenant with the children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. It is true it is said v. 10 11 12 13. They stood all before the Lord the Commandors and the men then the litle ones wives strangers hewers of wood drawers of water that they might enter into Covenant but that 1. The parents peculiarly as parents did enter into Covenant for their children appears not but rather that the entering of the Covenant was by the Rulers in behalf of the subject as the league with the Gibeonites was by the Princes in behalf of Israel whereto they were bound Josh. 9. 15 19.
except I have Mr. Bls. heifer to plough with Sure I am this kinde of crimination which Mr. Bl. useth is very unsuitable to a clear and solid disputant thus by dark flirts and quips to abuse me But I think it best to slight his charge presuming intelligent men will be little moved with it As for his position the terms being ambiguous and especially the term in covenant being used as I often complain in such variety of senses or rather sometimes non-sense by Paedobaptists that it seems to be used by them to elude rather than to inform it may be either granted or denied as the terms are explained and if this did occasion me to take time to answer it I did therein prudently and if after two or ten years my answers be various they are so upon due considerations For present I grant those infants if they were infants mentioned Matth. 19. 14. were in the covenant of saving grace stood in relation to Christ as chosen in him and in that respect bare his name as his breâ—heren were of his invisible people not as heathens in their present state without Christ being given to him nor aliens from the Common-wealth of the Israel of God the invisible Church of the elect nor strangers from the covenant of promise that is the covenant of promise commensurate with election of grace and this I grant to be evident of those particular persons if not by their free admission to Christ yet by the reason by him given it being supposed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is meant of them as well as of those that were like them in humility But if the position be understood of being in covenant either by their own act of coveâ—anting or that which is called by Paedobaptists in their non-sense or proper gibberish the outward covenant or that it be meant that they stood in relation to Christ as visible members of the Christian church in their present state while they were infants I deny it to be true or that it is evident by their free admission by Christ and the reason by him given Mr. Bls. fifth position is They were admitted upon a common right equally belonging to all infants of covenanting parents and not by virtue of any extraordinary privilege peculiar to them and not common to other This is plain saith he 1. By the general admission which he gives to infants on this occasion Suffer little children come to me and as Mr. T. more than once observes Extraordinarium non facit regulam communem here is a general Rule all have admission and therefore there is nothing extraordinary 2. It was such a right that the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood as plainly appears by Christs sore displeasure conceived against them for forbidding their admission to him and that must be a known right and not secret Answ. 1. There is not a word in the Text to prove that they were admitted upon any right to their admission as due to them and which might be claimed for them but they were admitted out of grace 2. There is nothing in the Text to prove they were the children of covenanting parents or that they were admitted out of any respect at all to their parents state whatever it were As for Mr. Bls. reasons To the 1. I say The words are a Command onely for those little children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suffer the little children to wit them brought to come to me nor doth it appear by any after instance of Christ or his Apostles that this was understood as a general rule that all should have admission 2. Were it granted that this rule of Christ did reach to others besides those then brought yet there is nothing in the Text to prove this rule of admission to be onely of infants of covenanting parents or to these or any other by reason of right from their covenanting parents Yea rather if any right be intimated it is the personal right of the infants for of such is the Kingdom of God 2. It is true the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood they were to be admitted But that this was the reason why they ought to know they were to be admitted because of their known right is imagined but not proved And how or for what reasons they might know they were to be admitted is shewed above in answer to Mr. B. Mr. Bl. adds Mr. T. indeed says They were not admitted out of any known right common to others but a perculiar privilege as being elected for which he quotes Piscator when as he hath heard and replies nothing that Piscator syllogistically concludes the contrary Answ. I said not they were admitted out of a peculiar privilege as being elected nor for this did I quote Piscator and therefore in my animadversions in my postscript I made no reply to Mr. Bl. in this thing My words in my Examen pag. 146 147. were these 4. Let it be granted they were the infants of believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdom of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to their present estate as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God in which I do not at all assign the reason why the little children were to be admitted to come to Christ nor do I quote Piscator for it and therefore Mr. Bl. misâ—ecites my words but shew how it might be true that of those infants was the Kingdom of God yet in their present estate they neither believers nor justified Against which Piscator is so far from concluding syllogistically as Mr. Bl. says that disputing against the Lutherans affirming infants to be believers because of Christs words Matth. 19. 14. in his Observe 11. out of that v. he sayth thus Deinde etiamsi ponatur sermonem hic de infantibus esse tamen non potest hinc certò concludi illos praeditos esse â—ide Etâ—nim infantium potest esse regnum coeâ—orum etiamsi non credant dummodo sint electi which are the effect of my words And for the rest that follows in Mr. Bl. about Christs design and the Disciples duty to know it and their sin in being ignorant of it there is answer before in the answer to Mr. B. Nor is there a word in my writing that tends to this that either they knew or were bound to know the election of those infants or that Christ was angry with them for not knowing it I have often said it was either because they heeded not some particular intimation of his minde concerning those infants or some general truth concerning Christs Office and his readiness to do good to all sorts of persons as there was opportunity offered from which he ought not to be hindered by them I do not confess as Mr. Bl. sayth of me that elect infants might be baptized were
the Covenant and were not accidental to them Which how false it is how contrary to the Tenet of Divines former and later is shewed in my Examen part 3. Sect. 12. to which I may add the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 19. Art 3. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament And if all of them be abrogated how can it be true that the law about circumcising Infants still binds But Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 195. conceives his argument from the analogy of the Ceremonial law of Circumcision which he calls his Analogical argument pag. 201. good on the contrary I deny any argument from analogy of the Ceremonial law good in meer positive ceremonies to prove thus it was in the old Testament therefore it must be so in the new And thus I argue 1. Arguments from Analogy in meer positive Rites of the old Testament to make rules for observing meer positive Ceremonies of the new wthout institution gathered by precept or apostolical example or other declaration in the new Testament do suppose that without Institution there may be par ratio a like reason of the use of the one Ceremony as the other But this is not true For in positive Rites there is no reason for the use of this not another thing in this manner to this end by or to persons but the will of the appointer For there is not any thing natural or moral in them they have no general equity they are supposed to be meerly not mixtly positive Therefore where there is not the like Institution there is not a like reason and therefore this opinion of Analogy in positive Rites from a parity of reason without Institution in the new Testament is a meer fancy and no good ground for an argument To apply it to the case in hand Circumcision and Baptism are meerly positive ordinances Mr. B. cals them p. 9. Positives about worship Generally Sacraments by Divines are reckoned among meer positives Chamier Panstr Cath. Tom. 4. l. 2. c. 12. Sect. 20. nulla vera ratio Sacramentorum potest consistere absque institutione l. 7. c. 10. Sect. 1. nullum Sacramentum est à natura sua itaque prorsus ab institutione The places are innumerable in Protestant writers and others to prove this were it not that I find my Antagonists often forget what is elsewhere yielded by them I should not say so much the thing being so plain that there is nothing natural or moral in them because till they were appointed which was thousands of years after the creation they were not used nor taken for signs of that which they signified The reason then of Baptism and Circumcision is meerly Institution if then there be not the like Institution there is not the like reason This argument is confirmed by Mr. M◠grant Defence pag. 92. 182. the formal reason of the Iews being circumcised was the Command of God therefore there is not the like reason of Infant-baptism as of Infant-circumcision without the like command of God But there is no expresse command for Infant-baptism as Mr. M. confesseth therefore there is not par ratio like reason of the one as the other 2. I thus argue If all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews be now abrogated then no argument upon supposed analogy or parity of reason from the institution of those abrogated Rites can prove a binding rule to us about a meer positive Rite of the new Testament For how can that make a binding rule to us about another meer positive Rite without any other Institution which it self is abrogated that which binds not at all binds not about another thing v. g. Baptism But all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews are now abrogated as is proved in my Examen part 3. sect 12. and confessed by the Assembly Conf. of faith chap. 19. art 3. ergo none of them bind This argument is confirmed by the words of Mr Cawdrey Sabbat Rediv. part 2. chap. 7. sect 7. pag. 263. No ceremonial commandement can infer a moral commandement The reason of our assertion is this because partial commandments given to some Nation or persons as the Ceremonial precepts were cannot infer a general to oblige others even all the world Again Sect. 10. pag. 276. First it is so in all other like special and ceremonial Commandements concerning dayes whensoever the particular day was abrogated the whole Commandement concerning that day was utterly abolished the Law of Circumcision and of the Passeover is expired as well as the sacramental and ceremonial actions commanded by that law This Mr. M. conceived he had prevented by supposing that in some commands about the Sacraments of the Iews are some things that belong to the substance of the Covenant and limiting his assertion to those And when in my Examen pag. 115. I argued that in no good sense it can be true that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews contained things belonging to the substance of the Covenant he tels us pag. 198 199. of his Defence that our Sacraments have the same substance with theirs the same general nature end and use which he makes in these things theirs were seals of the Covenant so ours c. But none of all these are to the purpose his allegations tending onely to prove that our Sacraments and the Jews have the same general nature which he calls substance but not a word to shew that any command about them belonged to the substance of the Covenant but as if he were angry or did disdain a man should question his dictates onely recites his meaning and a passage or two of Protestant Authors and never answers a word to my objection Exam. pag. 115. that in no good sense could it be true that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant Yea when I animadverted on that saying in his Sermon the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadows and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply saith he in his Defence pag. 99. this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Which words in the plain construction of them do note that Circumcision is comprehended in his c. as belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the Covenant And yet pag. 187. he hath these words I have already proved that is no where no not so much as in attempt that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance meaning of the Covenant of grace belong to it I say not as a part of it but as a means of applying it So uncertain and enterferring one
say Be it subsequent directory or what ever else he will call it Mr. Blake might easily perceive by my words Examen pag. 28 29. and elsewhere I take the word institution for any appointment by precept command or example approved either express or gathered by good consequence if any of these wayes an institution of Infant-baptism can be shewed out of the New Testament without the analogy of Circumcision I should not make any doubt of it and therefore it is but unnecessary wrangling which he useth about the word institution Let him shew any subsequent directory for Infant-baptism as is for Infant-circumcision without the analogy of Circumcision and I am satisfied Yet to shew the vanity of his speeches and arguings I shall a little scanne them He denies an institution of Infant-circumcision Gent. 17. 10. he saith it is but asubsequent directory for the particular day Answ. Ausonius Popma de differ verborum l. 3. Institutines sunt praecepia quibus docentur homines atque instituuntur In this general acception a directory is an institution But were it taken strictly for a command establishing that â—ite surely v. 12. not onely the particular day was appointed but the person also to wit the Infant of eight dayes old among Abrahams people and all the verses 10 11 12 13 14. together are termed sanctio circumcisionis by Pareus in his Commentary But we find not the institution with restriction to Infancy saith Mr. Blake Ans. True nor did I ever say the institution was restrained to Infancy or that there was an institution only for children of eight dayes nor do I deny that the precept Gen. 17. 10. was more general than that it should be restrained to the eighth day yet v. 12. the circumcising of infants was limited to the eighth day Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part 1. pag. 135. For some particular occasions of worship God was pleased of old to determine some time exclusively as the eighth day from the birth of a child for Circumcision and the eighth day for the sacrificing of the firstling males of cattel neither sooner nor later Nor do there want those among Protestant Divines who make it unlawful to do it before or after but will-worship except in cases of necessity as in the wilderness c. in which case the rule holds God will have mercy and not sacrifice and the thing might be done afterwards as in the circumcision of those who were born in time of their travel in the wilderness But to have altered the time of a mans own motion without such necessity had been will-worship as it was charged on Jeroboam 1 Kings 12. 33. that he sacrificed in the moneth he had devised of his own heart What Mr. Blake saith there is in the New-Testament-times an institution of baptism for all in Covenant without difference of age or sex is false except by being in Covenant he understand not being in Covenant by Gods promise onely or others faith or undertaking for them but by their own act of Covenanting that is engaging themselves in their own persons by their own act to be Christs Disciples or believers in him there being no institution in the New Testament times of baptizing any other than Disciples or Believers in Christ. Mr. Blake adds I instanced in the Apostles argument from analogy for Ministers maintenance 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. Mr. Tombs answers The Apostle doth not by bare analogy conclude Ministers maintenance but from the Lords ordinance He does conlude it then by his confession from analogy though not barely from analogy Neither have any one of Mr. T s Antagonists concluded Infant baptism barely from analogy of Circumcision There are other arguments which wait for his answer so that this instance stands Answ. My Confession was not that the Apostle argued from any such analogy as Paedobaptists conclude Infants-baptism from to wit the rule of Circumcision thus Circumcision was appointed to Infants in Covenant therefore Baptism is appointed to Infants in Covenant they having the same main and principle end to seal the Covenant of grace which is Mr. Blakes own arguing which is from a ceremonial rite of the Old Testament to a ceremonial rite of the New without precept or example of Christ or his Apostles For 1. The Apostles argument 1 Cor. 9. 9. seems not to me to be from analogy but a testimony explained So Mr. Dicson in his Com. Arg. 3. a testimonto legis de pabulo bovi trituranti dando quod ostendit dictum esse in gratiam omnium laborantium in aliorum usum potissimum in ministerio Diodati The end of Gods Law is not to shew how cattel should be fed but to command equity to be used in just rewarding of those who labour for us Mr. Blake himself vindic foederis pag. 406. Thirdly he argues from the command of the Law 2. If it be from any analogy it is in things that have a parity of equity and so it is in moral things which are perpetual not in meer positive rites 3. It is an analogy which the Apostle delivered to us not analogy made by men not guided by an infallible spirit as is the inference of Paedobaptism from Circumcision and therefore is not of force to oblige mens consciences I have shewed before that the Paedobaptists main argument is barely from such analogy and for other arguments waiting for mine answer either they are answered before sufficiently oâ— God assisting will have answer in this Review Mr. Blakes arguments vindic foede ch 43. sect 1. require no longer answer The first is the same with Mr. Bs. second And the Major is to be denied if by unless order be given to the contrary be meant of order given to the contrary in formal positive terms such as this Thou shalt nor baptize Infants If it be meant of order given to the contrary either in express formal prohibitive terms or equipollent the Minor is to be denied In the second the Major is to be denyed and in like manner the third distinguishing the term holy In the fourth both the Major and the Minor and so likewise the fifth explaining the term church privileges In the sixth the Major is to be denyed if understood of the invisible Kingdom of God only if of the visible the Minor is to be denyed In the other two additionals the Major if universal is to be denyed and the Minor is true of infants of unbelievers as well as believers And for the last Argument the matter is as easily answered as the form For the Major Those that are to be saved are to be added to the Church by baptism Act 2. 47. is to be limited by the text v. 41. thus when they willingly receive the word If no larger answer be given Mr. B. to these arguments yet this will be enough to shew they are without much difficulty answerable Mr. Bs. proofs likewise God assisting shall have fuller answer than they deserve though were it not for his
I may reply by way of retortion why may not Mr. T. as well deny an institution and destroy it as well as curtail that which is instituted we shall be able to make it good that he curtails Christs institution in the New Testament cuting off many Churchmembers in Covenant he shall never be able to prove that we extend it by analogy or otherwise beyond the institution Answ. That exception of mine did very well agree with ingenuity and it might have stood better with Mr. Bs. ingenuity to have taken the exception as sufficient to invalidate his rule than to have made this taunting reply The answer had no fault but that it was a little more modest than might have stood with truth For 1. I might have said truly not onely that no reason is given but also that no reason can be given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament For their analogy being a meer humane invention if they have authority to enlarge the ordinance they have authority to make a new worship the Papists if they have authority to appoint Baptizing of bells they have authority to appoint the Sign of the Cross for the same end for which baptism was the same authority which serves for the one serves for the other Yea if the analogy direct in the nature use and extent of an instituted worship what doth it else but make a new worship And that it may be seen how dangerous it is to follow Mr. Blakes rule I would have it considered how we shall avoid justifying the Popish mass if we stick to it He allows analogy in the understanding of the nature or use of an instituted worship the Lords Supper is an instituted worship and it is conceived it succeeds the Passeover as Baptism Circumcision if then by the analogy of Circumcision we may gather the use of Baptism we may in like manner from the analogy of the Passeover gather the use of the Lords Supper It is certain from he Apostles words 1 Cor. 5. 7. For Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us that the Passeover was a sacrifice and such a sacrifice as resembled Christ and therefore propitiatory and then by analogy the use of the Lords Supper is so too which is the chief point whereby the popish mass is established The very self same rule will prove the Ministers of the Gospel who succeed the Priests of the Law and by analogy from whom according to Mr. Blake the Apostle reasoneth 1 Cor. 9. 13 14 will be proved sacrificing Priests if as Mr. Blake saith analogy may direct us in the use of an instituted ordinance 2. I say Mr. Blake doth by his analogy according to his first rule allow the making a new worship For the worship is not the same but a new worship when though the same element be used yet the nature use and extent of is otherwise than the institution as though the Pharisees used water according to the tradition of the Elders Mark 7. which is the element used in Baptism yet their washing their hands was another worship than Christian Baptism because the nature use and extent of it was other than the institution of Baptism So likewise though water be retained in their so called Infant-baptism yet it being neither used in the manner appointed by Christ to wit by dipping but by sprinkling or powring nor on the subject appointed by Christ to be baptized to wit disciples or believers in him but on Infants who are not such nor to the end Christ appointed that is to testifie by that act their owning Christ for their Lord their dying to sin and rising to newness of life but onely to seal the Covenant of Grace I say a new worship is made in their Infant-watering as there was of old a new worship made in Infant-communion and is at this day in the Popish mass and Baptizing of bells As for Mr. Blaks retortion I do grant Mr. T. may as well deny an institution and destroy as well as curtail that which is instituted But that by denying Infants visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church of the New Testament and their being in Covenant and right thereby to Baptism I curtail Christs institution I do then expect he will be able to make good when he proves the snow black and the crow white And whether I prove that by analogy or some other way Baptism is extended beyond the institution in Infant-baptism I leave it to the Reader to judge Mr. Blake goes on thus The second rule he saies overthrows all for if we may not rest solely on the analogy why at all How then is that collection from Ezek. 44. 8. good after other arguments against non-residence neither do I say that it may not go alone but it will hardly go alone but other arguments will be found to second it in which I also gave instances Answ. 1. The collection from Ezek. 44. 8. is good to illustrate not to rest on as a proof yet with the correction of my speech as above 2. I did not charge him that he said it may not go alone nor is it to the purpose which he tells us that he said analogy will hardly go alone But this I say His second rule is that reasoning from analogy holds when we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands but have our further reason for confirmation which doth plainly intimate that we may not rest solely on it Now I argue if it be a good proof we may rest solely on it For one good proof is enough for a man to rest upon though more arguments make it clearer If then we may not rest solely on analogy with other commands as Mr. Blakes words intimate then it is not a sufficient proof To which in Mr. Blakes words there is no reply nor hath he avoided my objection that his second rule overthrows what he contends for the validity of his analogical arguments impugned by me Mr. Blake of me He adds this is enough to shew that analogy hath no strength that indeed it doth not onely illustrate connot prove what is an argument by analogy but an argument à simili I had thought there had been much difference between these two kinds of arguments à pari à simili pari à similibus omninò differunt saith Scheibler in his Topicks I may send him to his Dictionary to see whether one be not Englished equal or even and the other like or semblable I may send him to the Predicaments whether one be not in Quantity the other in Quality and demand of him whether there be magis minus par aequale as there is magis minus simile And to con ult with the Topicks whether that be not one head from which they draw arguments which in their judgement are valid Hath Mr. T. never read de paribus idem est judicium quod valet in re
that infant-baptism wants an institution as if the meaning were that it wants an institution with limit to infant age and then talks thus at randum This Objection if it have force in it followed home will overthrow all baptism at any age and every other new Testament ordinance whatsoever For according to this rule a person must bring a precept for one of his age to be baptized But this is M. Blakes mistake of the objection For in it an institution is not required with limit to infant age but such an institution as comprehends by any description ordinarily infant age But then saith he upon the same account church-members in covenant of any age ought to be baptized and so the institution is not in question about that there is an agreement but whether infants be in covenant whether they be any church-members is to be disputed which already is satisfied Answ. It is false which he faith that there is an agreement about the institution I deny that the institution is Baptize persons in covenant except he mean persons in covenant by their own profession and promise or that it is all one to baptize disciples and to baptize persons to whom God hath promised or covenanted Christ For then the Jews yet uncalled should be baptized to whom Gods covenant is Romans 11. 27. It is false also that upon the same account upon which the institution of baptism with limit to infancy is waved church-members in covenant of any age in Mr. Blakes sense ought to be baptized and that the question is only whether infants be in covenant whether they be any members He knows well that I yield that infants are in the covenant of grace in respect of Gods promise to as many of them as are elect whether believers children or not and that I grant that many of them are members of the invisible Church yea he himself in his 43. chap. of Vindic. foederis sect 3. had disputed against my tenet denying a connexion between the covenant and initial seal and therefore this speech of his shews either his oscitancy or his willingness to mislead He then repeats his arguments in his Birth privilege in the same words he then used to prove the institution to comprize infants which were answered in my Examen sect 13. and my answer there vindicated in my Postscript sect 14 15 18. in answer to the 11 chapter of Mr. Blakes answer to my Letter I will not here repeat what I then answered but reply to what he excepts in his Vindic. Foederis pag. 413. where he doth not shew insufficiency in what I say Apol. page 147. to answer his allegation of Isaiah 49. 22. But saies he doubts not I abuse my memory Concerning which I yield it not unlikely my memory did fail me in that thing of his alleging Isaiah 49. 22. as an argument by it self I hope this may satisfy Mr. Blake and the Reader if he read the places in my writings here mentioned may be satisfyed that it proves not any thing for Mr. Blakes purpose Likewise for what I answered in my Postscript sect 18. to his allegation of Mat. 18. 5. 10. 42. Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 47 48. he refers to Mr. Baxters book page 22. I shall refer the Reader to my answer to Mr. B. here M. Blake only adds that the denyal that infants are within the verge of the Commission Mat. 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession in a contradiction The nations are to be discipled Infants bear a part of the nation and yet infants are in an incapacity wholly of it See Mr. Cooks answer to the Challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford pag. 14. I reply Mr. Blakes words are so obscure as many of his speeches are that I understand not his meaning when he saith The denyal that infants are within the verge of that commission Matthew 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession in a contradiction whether he mean thus my denial involves the Apostles in a contiadiction to their own sayings or to Christs words either way understood I discern not any truth or shew of truth in Mr. Blakes words Christs words are a command and not an enunciation and therefore there can be according to exact expression no contradiction to them and for any sayings of the Apostles which should be involved in a contradiction by my denial it is beyond any art of divination of mine to ghesse which and where they should be And for his syllogism it is false consisting of four terms 1. The nations 2. to be disciples 3. infants 4. bear a part of the Nation If it were good I might from the parallel place Mark 16. 15. argue in the same manner Every creature is to have the Gospel preached to it Infants bear a part of every creature therefore to infants the Apostles were to preach the Gospel Nor is there any contradiction in these two Propositions The nations are to be discipled and yet infants are in an incapacity of it no more than in these God hath granted repentance to the Nations Acts 11. 18. yet not to infants All nations and all people are exhorted to praise God Rom. 15. 11. in him shall the nations trust verse 12. yet not an infant meant The speeches are so plain Acts 15. 3. declaring the conversion of the nations verse 7. God made choice among us that the nations by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe verse 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Nations to take out of them a people for his name verse 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord and all the Nations upon whom my name is called verse 19. Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Nations are turned to God Acts 20. 25. As touching the Nations for the word translated Gentiles and Nations is the same in all these places which believe we have writen and yet in no one of these places are infants meant under the term Nations And when our Lord Christ expresseth what he said Matthew 28. 19. Disciple all nations by the words preach the Gospel to every creature Mark 16. 15. as the comparing the texts shews and interpreters confess I know not how to conceive with what Spirit Mr. Blake is moved who doth so often seek to impose his stale all egations so often and so plainly refuted Will any man conceive that Christ bid them preach to infants and yet his bidding them to disciple all nations is as much as to bid them go preach to all nations If men do swallow down such fancies I can hardly judge but that they are willing to be deceived In Mr. Cookes book in the place to which he refers me I find no more then in Mr. Blakes and therefore need give no other answer than what is given to him But Mr. Blake addes
the general term all nations Mr. Blake goes on He further saith that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express example in formal terms of womens receiving the Lords Supper we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of one bread I demand of Mr. T. whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians or in the person of women not of women sure for he takes in himself and he was a man and then the formality of an express example falls When it is said that the whole house of Israel is circumcised in the flesh Mr. T will not yield that there is a proof not by any consequence that women though of the house of Israel were virtually circumcised but all partaking of one bread there is a proof formal and express that they were at the Lords Supper Answ. An expresse formal example is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 17. of womens receiving the Lords Supper there being relation of partaking the bread in the indicative mood and the term we all according to Grammar construction the matter not excluding them comprehending women as well as men For the Apostle under all we expresly comprehends all the many that were one bread and one body who are all Christians both Jewes and Gentiles 1 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mr. Blakes demand makes a disjunction of members coincident which is illogical However to it as it is I say the Apostle speaks in his own person not in anothers yet he speaks of the persons of all Christians both men and women and he takes in as expresly the women as the men and the formality of the example is of one as well as the other As for the other passage alleged by Mr. Blake the Predicate circumcised in the flesh being necessarily understood of actual circumcision there is a necessity to understand the Subject the whole house of Israel synecdochically else the speech would not be true But tropes are not to be made but where there is a necessity to make good the speech or to make it agree with the scope circumstances and other expressions of which there is no necessity 1 Cor. 10. 17. to verify the speech of the Apostle but that it is true of women as well as men and must be so understood without a trope and therefore there the speech is to be expounded according to the plain Grammatical meaning as expressed formally without the like trope Mr. Blake saith of me He brings Acts 20. 7. that the disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread Here is an example as express and formal Mr. T. cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence much less expressly that there was a woman there At that night meeting there might be none but men as at the first institution It can never be an express example till it be made appear that none are disciples but women Answ. I had thought when it is said it is appointed unto men once to dy Heb. 9. 27. death passed upon all men in that all have sinned Rom. 5. 12. it had been express and formal for womens and infants dying though there be other men than women and infants and yet in both places men in Greek is in the masculine gender Disciples in the Acts note all Christians Acts 11. 26. Tabitha is named a disciple Acts 9. 36. and therefore there being no reason to make a trope Acts 20. 7. in the word Disciples Christian women as well as men are comprehended And by breaking bread say the Assembly at Westminster Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren page 67. Sacramental breaking of bread is understood generally by all Acts 20. 7. The like is said by Chamier Panst. Cathol tom 4. l. 7. c. 6. s. 13. And it is confirmed 1. from the text the words importing that the breaking of bread is there meant which was the end of their customary meeting on the Lords day But this was Sacramental Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. where the Lords Supper is called breaking bread as the usual known term among Christians This seems to me infallible proof that women were there or which is to my purpose that usually they did meet with other disciples to break break As for what Mr. Bl. addes That if I had the texts in hand of a whole houshold baptized they would be sufficiently formal for infant-baptism I tell him no for I could not have withstood the clear light to the contrary from the words Acts 16. 18. and elsewhere which limit the whole house to persons that did hear the word believe receive fear God c. Ampsing dialog contra Anabap. page 206. Idem quoque vobis responsum volumus ad loca illa Act. 16. 34. 1 Cor. 16. 15. Tit. 1. 11. ubi quaedam de totis familiis enunciantur quae non nisi de adultis accipi possunt It is false that the Commission Matthew 28. 19. is to baptize Nations but disciples in or out of nations as is proved above Providence hath not ordered that nations including infants have been brought into the Church as Christ appointed to wit by preaching the Gospel but the national Churches are gathered otherwise than Christ appointed by human laws and infant-baptism I value as much the Churches practice as ever but it is false that in no controverted thing the Church is found so unanimous as in this of infant-baptism It is more unanimous about Episcopacy Prelatical use of the sign of the cross and many other things as may be seen in Mr. Sprint of Conformity pag. 85. c. I shall in convenient time I hope shew the mistakes of Paedobaptists plea for infant-baptism from antiquity The other speech of Mr. Blake That which will speak for infants to receive them into Heaven will speak also to receive them into the Church by baptism is not true For Election the Covenant of Grace a secret work of an initial habitual seminal or actual holiness or faith being supposed may speak to receive them into Heaven yet not to baptism Nor doth it follow that if want of faith exclude them from baptism then by the text Mark 16. 16. the same want of faith excludes from salvation For as I answer in my Praecursor s. 6. a want of faith dogmatical excludes from baptism and yet excludes not infants from salvation SECT VII Mr. Ms. exceptions that Matthew 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism that onely disciples are not appointed to be baptized that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted are refelled THere are many other exceptions against the argument from the institution Matth. 28. 19. to be considered Mr. M. in his Sermon page 44. saith 1. That of matth 28. is not the institution of baptism 2. It was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant 3. It s only an inlargement of their Commission To which in my Examen I said 1. If this be not the first institution yet it is an
hands were used to be imposed on persons in blessing Gen. 48. 14. which I allow He sets down six positions the first of which having confirmed he speaks thus of me Mr. T. brought his reasons against this to have nipt all in the bud but those he hath quit and is brought to confess that he contradicted himself in them and hath not a word to excuse his false quotation out of Mark concerning scandalizing onely excusing himself that he delivered himself doubtfully in them Apol. 149. Answ. It is true I brought in my Examen p. 146. Piscators reasons in his Observ. 11. on Matth. 19. 14. to prove the little children Matth. 19. 13. 14. not to have been infants but boyes who were capable of instruction which it is true I say in my Apol p. 149. I dâ—d not stick to nor need I sith at first I said Examen pag. 145. onely It is doubtfull whether these were infants or no. Nor is it truely said by Mr. Bl. that I excused my self as if I had been in a fault For it is true which I alleged not onely Piscator conceiving they were not infants but Estius also Annot. ad Marc. 10. 13. saying it is not certain that they were infants which could neither speak nor gâ— Which very doubtfulness doth weaken the argument thence for infant baptism yet I had no reason to stick to that there being other answers sufficient besides Not is it true which he saith that I am brought to confess I contradicted my self in the reasons brought and that they were my reasons for I expresly said they were Piscators reasons and therefore though Piscator should contradict my exposition of Matth. 18. 5. in those reasons I need not own it much less do I confess that I contradict my self in them as Mr. Blake falsely chargeth me as one that cares not what he prints so he may fully me with a black coal Nor was any false quotation out of Mark used by me I onely brought Piscators words de quali non scandalizando ibidem monet which if he misapplied to infants and thereby crossed my interpretation of Matth. 18. 5 6. he opposed himself though I think neither Piscator nor my self were guilty of any self-contradiction but Mr. Bl. of mistake and calumny Mr. Bl. saith he knows not that any in print hath maintained it that little children brought to Christ were diseased so as to have need of cure But there is now a Book in folio written by Mr. Samuel Fisher intituled Baby baptism meer babism in which p. 134 are these words that he should touch them and put his hands on them and pray no question 't was in order to healing for 't was at a time when he healed many others if you compare this passage as 't is in Matth. 19. with the first and second verses of the chapter yea v. 15. 't is plainly expressed what he did i. e. he laid his hands upon them and departed thence besides Luke says they brought little children to him also that he should touch them which also shews that others were brought too as sick folks commonly were because virtue went out of him so that as many as touched him were made perfectly whole Nor do I think Mr. Blakes reasons sufficient to countervail the other For though the Disciples well knew that it was usual with Christ to cure those that laboured under infirmities of all ages yet they sometimes shewed their unwillingness to have persons trouble Christ about diseased persons as Matth. 15. 23. Luke 10. 39. and whereas Mr. Bl. saith the Evangelist would never have concealed this reason and mentioned another if he mean it of the reason why the Disciples rebuked the bringers of the little children the truth is the Evangelists mention no reason at all of the Disciples rebuke if he mean it of the reason why Christ would have them brought such reason stands well with this that the children were diseased brought to Christ to be cured and cured by Christ. I had said there is no certainty onely conjecture that they were the children of believers Mr. Bl. sets down his third position thus These were infants of such parents that were in Covenant with God which he proves Matth. 19. 1. 15. 24 26. Rom. 15. 8. This farther appears by that which they requested for these infants This Mr. T. seems to yeild they came saith he to Christ upon the conceit that he was a Prophet and so they might bring children to him to be blessed And farther says if this reason prove any thing it is that the childrens parents were Jews Apol. pag. 150. which is all that we contend for the Jews as yet were in Covenant Answ. 1. The reasons of Mr. Bl. some of them prove rather the bringers to be Jews than the parents 2. The proving the parents to be Jews if any do prove it is not a proof that they were believers for there were a great part if not the greatest part by much of the Jews unbelievers John 12. 37 38. And what he sayes The Jews as yet were in Covenant if he mean it of all the Jews and of the covenant of grace in Christ it is palpably false contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9. 7 8. where it is expresly resolved that all the natural children of Abraham and Israel were not at any time children of the promise If he mean it of any other covenant or promise of God or of some of the Jews it would nothing avail him for his purpose though his Proposition were granted him His fourth Proposition is thus exprest These infants themselves were in covenant and stood in relation to Christ bearing his name and being of his people and were not as Heathens in their present state without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise This is evident by their free admission by Christ and the reason by him given When this was prest upon Mr. T. in solemn disputation he took time to consider and after more than two years in his Examen we have an answer which shame will not suffer him to own But in his Apology doth disclaim yet not convinced by Mr. M. my self or any other it is enough with me if the truth is confest if the truth may have the honor I am satisfied Answ. Were I nor sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Bls. charges without cause I should be jealous of my self that there is some thing done by me which might occasion this imputation What was prest on me in the disputation in London Anno 1643. and what time or for what reason I took time to answer after 10. years elapsed I cannot trust in my memory to inform me What answer I gave in my Examen which in my Apology I disclaim and shame will not now suffer me to own concerning this proposition of Mr. Bl. and its proof it is such a riddle to me that I cannot yet tell how to understand it
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
childe by lineal descent of such a father 2. Outward Prerogatives that accompany such a birth as his words are Vindic. Foed cap. 40. whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement takes it in the worser part not as importing a descent from the father but from the mother and that mother a bond woman and therefore the children servants or bond slaves by reason of their being born after the flesh I will use the words of Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus Die Dominica April 26. 1620. sect 18. Contrà verò Ismael etsi patre libero attamen matre servanatus est porro partus ventrem sequitur nascendi ergo conditione servus fuit tales scilicet sunt qui Deo cultum exhibent servilem fusticiarii where he explains the Apostles words Gal. 4. Against this Mr. Bl. excepts Vindic. Foed cap. 40. 1. That I make the Apostles parallel to look at the Allegory and not at the History when the Text makes it plain that the Apostle looks at the History then and now are both Adverbs of time and relate to Ishmaels jears in person not to the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace Here he is wholly silent and answers in his Apology nothing at all Answ. I conceived in answering the second I had answered this exception But I now answer particularly I conceived he meant by the history those words v. 22. 23. and the forepart of the 29. v. As then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit And by the parallel he meant the later part of the 29. v. And the allegory to be that which answers to Ishmael to wit to seek righteousness by the Law and to Isaac to wit to seek righteousness by faith which may be seen in Bezas and Piscators Diagrams where Beza and Piscator make Ishmael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer or to be in the same rank as the type with the Justitiaries that seek righteousness by the Law which answers â—o Hagar whose gneration is after the flesh that is justification is by works and are cast out of the family of God excluded from the inheritance of life as Ishmael from Abrahams and Isaac to answer to believers by virtue of the Covenant of the Gospel answering to Sara whose birth is after the Spirit that is whose justification is by faith and so are in Abrahams house and heirs of eternal life Now it is true I do make the history to be in the forepart of the 29 v. and the mystery or allegory in the later not but that I acknowledg there is a history in both parts of the verse as the Adverbs then and now shew But it is not the same history in the later part of the verse which is in the former For then there should be nothing allegorized yea there would be a meer tautology if as Mr. Bâ— speaks then and now both adverbs of time relate to Ishmaâ—s jeers in person then the speech of the Apostle is inept or rather false For then it should be As Ishmael in person then jeered Isaac so now Ishmael in person jeers Isaac which is I say still a gross absurdity But the later part contains another history of what was done in the Apostles time where in the terms born after the flesh and after the spirit are allgorized and applied to other sorts of persons and the term now relates the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace as hath been fully proved before against Mr. Blake 2. ' â—M Bl. excepted that I shut out the literal sense both from the history and parallel and bring in an allegorical sense in both when the contrary is evident in the Text for though Ishmael be a Type of one under the covenant of works yet that Ishmael himself was a Justiciary or that he sought righteousness that way and persecuted Isaac under any such notion as a man for Gospel-righteousness Scripture hath no word or so much as any colour ' â— Answ. This exception is the same in effect with the former and in answering this the former was answered in my Postscript sect 5. and now this is answered by answering the former yet I finde a necessity to add something by reason of Mr. Bls. unreasonable importunity I take notice that Ishmael is confessed to be a type of one under the covenant of works and whether he were himself a Justiciary is not material though sure there is some colour for it But this seems to be Mr. Bls. minde that in the parallel Gal. 4. 29. there 's no allegorical sense because Ishmael himself was not a Justitiary which reason rests on this conceit that neither in the forepart nor the later part of v. 29. by he that was born after the flesh is meant any other than Ishmael himself or in person which how it makes the Apostles speech tautological or false is shewed before Mr. Bl. goes on To this he answers he shuts not out the literal sense from the History but from the parallel and that is so far from being contrary to the Text that it is expresly sayd These things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Allegory I desire the Reader to take notice what kinde of interpretation Mr. T. will put on this Text and who will have him pass for an eminent Scripture interpreter when Mr. B. is a man in his high censure defective in it Then and now are both Adverbs of time and we must have a literal then and a mystical now one of them to answer the History and the other the Allegory if my interpretation be thus gross I desire the Reader to disclaim it either the Hâ—story must be wholly looked at in the parallel or else the Allegory there is that harmony between the Apostles then and now that will not admit such divorce and separation Answ. What I sayd of Mr. Bs. interpretations of Scripture in my Praecursor sect 3. appears by this writing to be right and will appear more hereafter Did he measure himself suâ— modulo ac pedâ— he would be more cautelous than he is in expounding Scripture and if he did take warning by my words the Church of God would have cause to thank me for them however he or Mr. Bl. take them I am sorry that the Reader and my self are troubled about such stâ—rtings rather than arguings which Mr. Bl. here and elsewhere useth which sure do ill become him who should at the years he is now of rather weigh things than lightly pass ever them with satyrical quips instead of arguments He may take notice that I make no mystical Now Gal. 4. 29. but in both parts the Adverbs of time are literal and yet the terms he that is born after the flesh and he that is born after the spirit are without any absuâ—dity meant allegorically as I have both sayd and demonstrated 3. Sayth Mr. Bl. I
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