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
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
true Exam. pag. 101. I said the yoke Acts 15. 10. was Circumcision as Mr. M. himself declared pag. 39. of his Sermon and all the legal Ceremonies and the reason why I used that expression was because I alleged Mr. Ms. words But that I meant not Circumcision in act or as acted on the flesh to be the yoke but Circumcision in command as commanded and imposed on the conscience appears by the words following if it be a privilege to be free from Circumcision it is a privilege to be free from any Ordinance in the room and use of it it was the Ordinance then I made the yoke And my minde is expressed thus pag. 135. The putting the yoke of Circumcision is not actual Circumcision in their flesh for that they were able to bear for many Ages but the necessity of it on mens consciences to salvation In my Antidote sect 6. I deny it to be actual Circumcision but somtimes call it the doctrine or opinion of the necessity of it In my Book of Scandalizing I call it the Ordinances of the Jews In my Praecursor pag. 10. the doctrines and commands but most plainly I express my self in my Praecursor pag. 74. in my Answer to the 27th absurdity Mr. B. chargeth me with pag. 208. of his Plain Scripture Proof c. where I make it the yoke of Doctrine or the command of Circumcision and shew that not onely Grotius but also Pareus Piscator Diadati the new Annot. so expressed it This then is my constant judgment 1. That the Yoke Acts 15. 10. is not actual Circumcision or Circumcision in act that is as acted on the flesh which alone serves for Mr. Bs. turn to prove infants Disciples for no more would they have done to infants 2. That the putting the yoke is teaching the necessity of it or the command of God still binding their consciences of which act the infants were not subjects recipient 3. That the yoke as from the false Teachers was the Doctrine or command of Circumcision and other Precepts of the Law which sundry learned men in their notes on Matth. 11. 29. gather to be meant by the yoke comparing these places with 1 John 5. 3. what is Matth. 11. 29. called Christs yoke is 1 John 5. 3. called his Commandments and doctrinal commands or as the expression is Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines commands are called Burdens Matth. 23. Luke 11. 46. Rev. 2. 24. As it is taken passively that is to be received by the person yoked or taught is the opinion of the necessity of these unto salvation or as Mr. B. himself after cals it the judgment of it 4. That by the Disciples are meant the converted Christians of the Gentiles called the Brethren v. 1. those that from the Gentiles turn to God v. 19. The brethren of the Gentiles v. 23. Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis pag. 208. Complaint is made Acts 15. 10. that those that urged the necessity of Circumcision put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear they urged it upon all in visible profession and not upon regenerate ones alone 5. That by their necks is meant not their flesh or skin but their consciences Let 's now see what Mr. B. brings to prove the yoke Acts 15. 10. to be actual Circumcision or in act that is acted on their flesh and not the doctrine or command of Circumcision or that the putting the yoke was in their flesh by cutting off the skin not in their consciences by teaching 1. Saith he The Text saith so three times over that it was Circumcision as necessary and engaging to Moses Law that was that yoke v. 1. They taught the brethren Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved and v. 5. They taught it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses and v. 24. saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law Answ. There 's not a word in either of the three Verses that says so expresly or by any good consequence that the yoke v. 10. is Circumcision actual or in act that is acted or to be acted on the flesh Mr. B. me thinks if he could have made any good inference from thence for his Conclusion should have formed it being not ignorant that in my Antidote I bring these very verses and words to prove the contrary 2. Saith he It appears evidently from the same v. 10. the yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear that which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear was the yoke there meant but it was Circumcision as necessary and engaging to keep the Law and not the Doctrine of the false Apostles which their fathers and they were not able to bear therefore c. The major is in the Text the minor is plain 1. In that there is no mention in the Scripture of the Fathers being so burdened with that false doctrine but that there is mention enough of their being burdened with the Law and Circumcision as engaging to it 2. It was true and good Doctrine before Christ which these false Apostles taught viz. that except they were circumcised and kept the Law they could not be saved I mean as to the Jews it was true for I will not now meddle with that great controversie whether the Gentiles were bound to keep Moses Law I know not what Grotius Franzius c. say on one side and Cloppen burgius and many more on the other Answer This passage I also allege against Mr. Bs. opinion in my Antidote sect 6. to prove that it is not Circumcision in act but in command or doctrine that is there meant by the yoke But that we may determine the thing it is to be considered 1. Who We and our Father are 2. In what part or respect and how it was intolerable Doubtless by we the Apostle means the modern Jews and by our Fathers the Jewes of former times The intolerableness was not to their flesh as Diodati speaks for the labour in observing it for though it be true that it was very irksom to observe Circumcision and the Rites of Moses Law yet Circumcision was possible to be born especially by an infant though in the end and intent of the circumcisers it was done as necessary and engaging to keep Moses Law yet the infants being not sensible thereof it was not intolerable to them And the Apostle Paul Phil. 3. 6. speaks of himself as touching the righteousness of the Law blameless But it was intolerable to their mindes and consciences by reason of the imperfection of it to quiet the conscience and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it in saith Diodati locum And therefore it was the Command and Doctrine that was intolerable to persons on whose consciences the Law was imposed not the acting Circumcision or Circumcision acted which alone was put on infants and consequently the yoke is not
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
the Ceremonies of the Jewish Church nor for the fooleries of the Popish Synagogue but for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ of which those ceremoni's were prenunciative and are ceased not because they were evil but because we have the substance and truth of them which is much better non quia damnata sed quia in melius mutata August Answ. The objection was Arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants is the way to introduce Judaism and to subject the Church again to the whole burthen of Jewish Ceremonies Mr. Churches answer is Arguing from the Iewish types for the substance of those shadowes c. Which answer is either meerly impertinent or else he conceives arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants to be arguing from the Jewish type for the substance of the shadow Which if he stand to then he must make Circumcision the type and Baptism of infants the substance of Circumcision which sure is not according to Scripture which makes Christ the body of which the ceremonies and among them Circumcision was a shadow Col. 2. 17. Nor doth Mr. Church prove any thing that he saith but vainly dictate when he makes arguing for infant Baptism from Circumcision to be arguing for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ and makes Circumcision a ceremony prenunciative of infant Baptism against which and the whole way of arguing from the use of Jewish rites to Christian from analogy without other institution I further reason 7. Protestant Divines do frequently deny the Jewish Sacraments to be types or figures of ours Ames Bellarm. ener tom 3. lib. 1. cap. 3. th 11. Sacramenta externa sunt figurae figuras figurarum non instituit Deus that they figured or represented Christ and his grace not other Sacraments Cap. 4. th 13. Absque ulla ratione asseritur circumcisionem fuisse figuram baptismi sacramentum non est signum visibilis sacramenti sed invisibilis gratiae Therefore no right arguing by analogy from a Jewish rite to a Christian which must suppose one to be a sign of the other which is denyed by them Mr. Church his speech is vain That the Apostle argues from the Sacrifices in the Iewish Church Rom. 12. 2. Heb. 13. 15. the offering of our selves and the sacrificing of praises which he calls the calves of the lips c. For 1. the Apostle doth not argue at all but only allusively calls the presenting of our bodies and giving thanks a sacrifice and the calves of our lips by reason of some resemblance which if it be arguing In the use of every Metaphor there is arguing 2. Were it arguing yet it is not to the purpose sith it is not any arguing from the use of one rite to another by analogy but from a rite to a moral duty to wit devotion and thanksgiving And when he adds And from sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime may the sealing of the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation be rightly argued sealing the promise being the substance of Circumcision and benefit intended by it and such arguing hath no colour of setting up Iudaism for arguing for the thing signified tends not to the introducement of antiquated Ceremonies he doth but write at random For if the reason of his assertion be pettinent then he must hold that sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation is the substance of circumcision and benefit intended by it But it is either unintelligible to me in what sense the sealing of the promise by baptism to infants of Christians can be the substance of circumcision and the benefit intended by it or else it is very absurd For then it will plainly follow 1. That till infantbaptism of Christians Circumcision was without its substance and the benefit intended by it 2. He makes infant baptism the thing signified by circumcision and the substance of circumcision and so one ceremony signifies and is the substance of another But however we judge of his unintelligible or absurd arguing it appears not by his answer but that the way of arguing by analogy from circumcision to baptism that is from the regulating our practice in a rite of the New Testament by a rite of the Old as obliging our consciences may and doth introduce Judaism and other evils as was objected Mr. Blake answer to my Letter pag. 97. seems to put by this arguing of mine by advising me to read over Bellermine and tell him then whether his arguments to lay the Sacraments of the Iews as low as types and to extol the Sacraments of Christians as their antitypes be not the self same that I and my party make use of to make so large a difference between circumcision and baptism Protestants deny them indeed to be types because they assirm they are in substance the same our doctrine keeps us at a distance from Bellarmine when you are in this reconciled to him making the same differences as he doth between Circumcision and Baptism Answ. Had M. Blake directed me to the place in Bellarmine he would have me seriously read over I should have done it But now not well knowing what place in Bellarmine he would have me read and the reading him all over and that seriously being a very tedious task I do not gratifie M. Blake in his request But to what he saith I reply I put sundry differences between Circumcision and Baptism in my Examen part 3. sect 9. which Mr. M. his Defence doth not shew to be false If they or any other I make be the same with Bellarmines and yet true Mr. Blake doth causelesly except against me for agreeing with Bellarmine sure it is no matter of blame to agree with the Devil himself in the truth it is no evill to believe there is one God because the Devils do so James 2. 19. But how this should reconcile me to Bellarmine in that which I except against him that he makes the Jews Sacraments Types of ours is to me unintelligible 2. Dr. Ames his words shew that therefore he denied that Circumcision was the figure or type of Baptism because a Sacrament is not a sign of a visible Sacrament but of invisible grace and that God hath not appointed figures of figures or types of types but types of some body or substance The reason M. Blake gives why they are not types because they are in substance the same I know not what Protestants do give whoever they be that do say so in my apprehension either they speak non-sense or false Sacraments being nothing but actions used to some ends according to appointment what substance they should have but the actions and the use I understand not Now that the actions are not the same it is manifest cutting off a little skin killing roasting eating a lamb being not the same with washing the body with water and breaking and eating bread
and drinking wine and for their end and use it is certain however they may agree in some things yet those being generals and accompanied with more differences in their end and use both general and particular it may be with greater reason denied that they are the same in substance than averred that they are And arguments drawn from the one to the other concerning their use are from things unlike as much as like yea denied by the users to be types figures or signs the one of the other and therefore cannot infer a parity in the thing questioned without institution 8. The ceremonies of the Jews are now not only mortal but dead buried and deadly according to the received Doctrine yea some condemn not only the use of them formally but also materally Rutherford Divine right of Church-Government Introd sect 1. pag. 8. saith It is a false ground of the Prelates that Circumcision a Passeover Lamb and all the Jewish ceremonies though with another endand intention than to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh are indifferent Riv. on Exod 20. Walaeus are cited by Mr. Cawdrey Sab. Red. part 4. c. 1. pag. 527. to the same purpose therefore not to be revived no not in Effigie by following any rule about them as by Analogie or proportion between them and ours without like institution binding us 9. Arguments from Analogie in positive rites without institution in the New Testament except God declare either by general rule or particular example he allowes such Arguments are but humane inventions as not being from the Spirit of God for that speaks only in the word about Doctrines but from mans reason But such are the Arguments drawn from a positive rite of the Old Testament now abrogated to regulate our practice in the Sacraments of the New as obliging our consciences Therefore they are against the second Commandment in the Decalogue our Saviours words Mat. 15. 9. In vaiu do they worship me teaching for Doctrines mens Precepts it is tyranny and usurpation in them that impose them and violation of their liberty forbidden by the Apostle Col. 2. 20. in them that submit to them Davenant exhort to brotherly commuunion ch 1. tells us that Luther wisely admonisheth us that in matters surmounting the capacity of humane reason we beware of Etymologies Analogies Consequences and Examples 10. Arguments from conceived Analogy are but Arguments from that which is like not the same But such are but weak things Proportions are weak probations said M. Rutherford Due right of Presbyt ch 2. sect 2. pag. 37. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 1. lib. 9. c. 10. s. 47. Deinde sunt hujus generis conclusiones magis verisimiles quam necessariae nisi nitantur Diser to Dei verbo Oxford Convocat reasons against the Covenant pag. 27. The Arguments à minore and à majore are subject to many fallacies and inless there be a parity of reason in every requisite respect between he things compared will not hold good They do illustrate rather than prove and therefore they that assert that Poedobaptism si fully determined in the old Testament where they have nothing but analogy from Circumcision and the Jewish Church state what ever their confidence be do but shew their weakness I shall now examine what Master Blake saith in answer to my Arguments and then what Mr. B. brings for his speech above recited SECT III. Mr. Blakes plea for arguments from analogy in meer positive rites of the old Testament and Mr. Bs. speech about infantadmission as determined in it are refelled MAster Blake Vindic. Foederis ch 42. sect 2. speaking of me saith And to this end he sets himself First to dispute down all Arguments à pari all whatsoever that are grounded on parity of reason or analogy and proportion This he speaks to in his Examen pag. 28. And I may here fitly refer the Reader to that which I have written chap. 10. sect 4. of my answer to M. T. only in a few words viudicate it from his exceptions against it in his Apology page 140. And page 308. he saith The Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all Arguments à pari Answ. It is not true That I set my self to dispute down all arguments à pari all whatsoever that are grounded on parity of reason or analogy and proportion For 1 in the place cited Examen pag. 28 29. I do expresly level my arguing against arguments from analogy onely in positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptism and the Lords Supper are which have nothing moral or natural in them but are in whole and part cetemonial 2. I do dispute against all such arguments not as brought to illustrate or confirm a thing otherwise proved from institution but when they are brought to infer Divine institutions and commands obligatory of mens consciences I had said Exam. part 2. s. 8. pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meer positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are 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 institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example Mr. Blake answer to my letter pag. 74 asks who those be I told him that he did Birth-privilege pag. 15. I should have said 14 and I mean those words upon this ground the Covenant Infants under the Law were Circumcised and upon the same ground Infants are now to be Baptized by the grounds of both Circumcision and Baptism we inforce the Baptism of Infants what is objected against one concludes against both Circumcision and Baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken there being the same principal and main end of both But he saith now Vindic. foederis pag. 373. In my whole discourse I did studiously avoid arguments drawn barely from analogy so that we may see how willing Mr. T. is to quarrel and how loath to speak truth Answ. There was nothing but truth and fair arguing in my Apology pag. 142. For though Mr. B. denies his argument to be barely from the analogy between Circumcision and Baptism by which he hid inforce the Baptism of Infants yet his arguing from the grounds of both without institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example is barely from analogy Analogy or proportion I neither did imagine nor conceive Mr. B. made in the likeness resemblance or evenness in the ritual part of Circumcision and Baptism that is the cutting off the skin or the washing the body as if he did argue Infants had a skin cut off therefore Infants are to be washed with water But the analogy I conceive made by him between them is in the supposed parity of reason taken from as he calls them the grounds of both secluding institution as my words shew Examen pag. 29. and postscript pag. 142. now this Mr.
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respiciens illud Exodi 14. 31. Crediderunt in Deum Mosen servum ejus id est Mosi tanquam Dei ministro cum bona siducia regendos se commisere sic Paulus negat quenquam baptizatum in suum nomen 1 Corinth 1. 13 15. hoc est sibi velut novi dogmatis auctori mancipatum Maimomides de bello capta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizet eam in nomen proselytarum id est in eam religionem quam profitentur proselytae Christiani igitur tres sui dogmatis auctores agnoscere jubebantur Patrem filium spiritum sanctum nihilque ut necessarium admittere quod non ab eis esset profectum id est quod non à patre ortum à filio proditum à spiritu verò esset partim explicatum apertius partim obsignatum Administratur enim baptismus ut loquitur Hilarius in confessione auctoris unigeniti dom But infants of believers do neither call upon the Father Son and holy Spirit nor devote themselves to their service nor profess the doctrine of Christ Therefore they are not baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit according to Christs appointment Mr. M. Defence page 266. calls these petty reasonings and saith That baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name and so to make baptism and prayer all one is strange divinity I reply My words are perverted by him I said baptizing is to be with the party baptized his invocation of the name of the Lord not that baptism and prayer are all one but that they should be concomitants and together in the use of baptism after Christs appointment And this is no strange divinity to others however it be to Mr. M. The words of Ananias Acts 22. 16. Beza on Matthew 28. 19. shew it to be no strange or forced Divinity Becman Exercit. Theol. 17. p. 251. hath the like In nomen hoc est invocato nomine Christi baptizamur The New Annot. on 1 Cor. 1. 13. The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism wherein we make a promise to Christ calling on also the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost The words of Grotius a learned man whatever his other qualities were shew it to be old Divinity Annot. on Matthew 28. 19. he speaks thus Post has ergo stipulationes atque responsiones quas verba Sacramenti Tertullianus vocat ad militiae morem alludens sequebatur baptismus cui accedebant preces in quibus nominabantur Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Orationem hanc propriè ad patrem directam indicare videtur Justinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solemne ejus invocations verbum erat Abba Pater ut not at Chrysostomus 8. ad Rom. 15. The words in Chrysostome hom 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by which we cry Abba Father This holy Ministers know what it is rightly commanding to say this word first at the mystical prayer meaning at baptism Grotius goes on thus His si addas id quod Acts 22. 16. refertur ab Anania dictum Paulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videbis tum eum qui baptizabatur tum eos qui baptismo aderant neque enim in toto coetu exercebatur primis temporibus quod ostendunt c. solitos orare Deum patrem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quomodo ipse orare nos docet John 14. 13 14. Ut sidem ejus qui baptizabatur liberam illam christianismi professionem muneraret spiritu suo sancto per gradus quosdam quorum initium erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius notes to like purpose on Luke 3. 21. where it is said Jesus being baptized and praying the Heaven was opened which shews Christ prayed at his Baptism and thereupon the Spirit descended which the Ancients conceived as a Rule and is at least recorded as an Example to be imitated Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. pag. 182. cals this New Light which if he mean Ironically as it is likely he doth he may hereby perceive that he is mistaken and for what he excepts against this Exposition that neither in the baptizing of the Samaritans Acts 8. was that Rule observed nor was it possible that the three thousand baptized in one day Acts 2. should arise each of them and call upon the Name of the Lord as they were baptized it proceeds upon a mistake as if no calling on the Name of the Lord were sufficient but that which was set and solemn before the publick Assembly whereas neither is Baptism necessary to be administred before the publick Assembly Grotius proves out of Justin Martyrs words and otherwise that it was administred not as they now do infant sprinkling in the publick meeting place but in some place without aside from the publick Assembly and the calling on the Name of the Lord was or might be ejaculatory whether in the heart onely or by words praying to the Father by Christ for the Spirit Mr. M. makes this inference from my words Then it seems if the party baptized call on the Name of the Lord by prayer that 's all that is intended by baptizing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But this is but another of his pervertings of my words for in the same place I joyned with it devoting themselves to the service of and adherence to the Father Son and Spirit which I proved out of 1 Cor. 1. 13 15. which proves plainly that to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Spirit notes not a Ministers Commission from the Father Son and Spirit nor a Form of words to be used by him at Baptism whether the party baptized understand it or no but in baptizing engaging the party baptized to acknowledg the Father Son and Spirit as Lord and Teacher Diod. Annot. in 1 Cor. 1. 15. In mine own Name as to binde them unto me to acknowledg me for their Head Hence Johns Baptism is the Doctrine he preached and the baptized by him professed Mark 1. 4. Acts 10. 47. 19. 3. and the Pharisees therefore were not baptized of John Luke 7. 30. because they should have professed Johns Doctrine which they were against if they had been baptized of him as their Disciples did their Doctrine and Johns Disciples did his Clear therefore it is that baptizing into the Name doth note not onely the act of the Ministers of Baptism but also the party baptized his act of invocating addicting profession of Service and Doctrine and obediently testifying it by that sign for that is plain from the command Acts 2. 38. Let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the requiring of a duty from them conjoyned with repentance and â—herefore to be baptized is not meerly passive but implies a voluntary yielding of a person to it And it is further proved
what was imposed on infants but on persons taught and commanded As for Mr. Bs. reasons the first he himself answers by his second For he saith that doctrine was true to the Jews before Christ therefore sure the Fathers were acquainted with it it was doctrine known among them whether the Scripture mention it or no and whether it were true or false if it were received by them it must needs be burdensome to them And for his second 1. That it was true doctrine to the Jews before Christ that except they were circumcised after the maner of Moses they could not be saved and that it was needfull to circumcise them and to Command them to keep the Law v. 1. 5. is in my apprehension diametrally opposite to Pauls doctrine Gal. 2. 3. 4. 5. Rom. 3. 4. 10. Phil. 3. concerning the non-necessity of observing the Law for justification justification by faith without the works of the Law both in Abrahams Davids Moses his time 2. If the doctrine were true to the Jews it was the more intolerable it wouldly the more heavy on their consciences finding themselves unable to observe it therefore this reason is against Mr. B. and proves the doctrine was the yoke But he adds Mr. T. saith it was the Pharisees doctrine of being justified by the Law which was the yoke But I answer 1. the Pharisees were not of so long continuance as to be the burden of the Fathers by their doctrine 2. these in the Text taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law so did not the Pharisees Answ. 1. Those in the Text taught not onely a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law by way of Precept but also of means that except they did so they could not be saved and that was still taken by the Apostle in the Epistles to the Romans Galatians Philippians as the Doctrine of Justification by the Law And that this was the yoke which was so intolerable Acts 15. 10. appears by the next words ver 11. But we trust or believe to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ even as also they The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being adversative shews the Apostles assertion v. 11. to contain an Antithesis to their Thesis or Doctrine that is whereas they impose this intolerable yoke of Doctrine that without Circumcision and keeping the Law Disciples cannot be saved We believe they may be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ purifying their hearts by faith v 9 without the observation of Moses Law 2. It is not true that they taught onely a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law as if they exempted others For though there is mention onely of their teaching the Brethren yet doubtless they held a like necessity of it or rather a greater for Jews whether converted or unconverted as for Christian Gentiles 3. But were it true that they taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law yet the Doctrine might be an intolerable yoke both to Disciples and to the Ancestors from whomsoever they learn'd it Whose Doctrine soever it were yet it was a yoke intolerable to present Disciples and the Predecessors of former Generations 4. The antiquity of the Pharisees is variously conceived by Writers it is conceived that Sect began three hundred years before the birth of Christ by some higher sure they were ancient enough to burden the Fathers that is the Ancestours of the modern Jews when Peter spake those words 5. Were it that others spake that Doctrine and burdened the Fathers with it yet it might be well called by me the Pharises Doctrine who taught it afterwards 6. That Mr. Bs. willingness to cavil may appear let v. 5. be read and there it is said The false Teachers were of the Sect of the Pharisees 3. Saith Mr. B. The Doctrine is no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision and keeping the Law in practice and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice therefore it is evident that the Doctrine is not the yoke but the judgment and practice which that Doctrine did teach them else it would be in the power of men to yoke and burden us at their pleasure But till we obey it we are free from the yoke therefore the yoke lieth not in the Doctrine but the obeying Answ. This Argument however faulty yet it plainly crosseth Mr. Bs. purpose for his aim is to expound the yoke so as that it may be said to be laid on infants and so they be reckoned for Disciples but if it be that the judgment and practice which the Doctrire did teach were the yoke if the yoke didly in obeying as he here saith then the yoke was not put or endeavoured to be put on infants the false Teachers neither did put nor endeavoured to put any thing on the judgment or practice of infants nor to have brought them to obeying What was to be done to them was not to be done by false Teachers but the Parents there was no act to be done on the infants mindes consciences judgments but on their flesh nor were they to be active in practice or willing in obedience but meerly passive and likely very unwillingly And therefore I infer from Mr. Bs. own Argument If the Doctrine were no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision and keeping the Law in practice and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice that the yoke is the judgment and practice which the doctrine did teach that it lieth in the obeying then it is no yoke to infants then it is not Circumcision as acted but as taught and yielded to then it was not to be put on infants and consequently no infants are meant by the Disciples Acts 15. 10. But for the thing objected as I have sayd before the doctrine may be considered either in se in it self as it came from the Teachers or in the event to the persons taught being yielded to by them It is true the doctrine was not à yoke to the Disciples eventually till the Disciples yielded to it but it was in it self a yoke and might so be called before as the truth of Christ is the Gospel or glad â—idings in it self and may be and is often so called though it prove not so to all that hear it Wherefore I have sometimes called the yoke the command sometimes the doctrine sometimes the necessity of observation sometimes the opinion of the necessity and all these in different respects are rightly made the Yoke in respect of God the command and necessity of observance of the Teachers the doctrine of the persons yoked the opinion and judgment when it becomes such in the event not onely in fieri but in facto esse yet no way
good doctrine before Christ which these false Apostles taught viz. that except they were circumcised and kept the Law they could not be saved I meaâ— as to the Jews it was true Now the Doctrine of those that mis-taught the Galatians was justification by the Law as appears by the Apostles opposition Gal. 2. 16 21. 3. 5. 11 18 21. 4. 21. 5. 4. and this was the same with the Doctrine of the false Teachers as appears from Acts 15. 1 9 10 11. and Mr. B. confesseth it to be the same But that Doctrine the Apostle denies to have been true and good before Christ to the Jews Gal. 3. 4. and elsewhere and therefore Mr. B. contradicts the Apostle and his speech overthrows the Gospel and avows keeping of the Law necessary to justification and salvation to have been true and good Doctrine to the Jews afore Christ. 3. He is not wilfull but considerate that by the yoke of bondage Gal. 5. 1. understands not Circumcision as acted on infants that is the bare passive reception of Circumcision of which onely infants are capable no nor perhaps for that is disputed all willing receiving of Circumcision as the Habassiâ—e Christians do but the willing subjecting to Circumcision according to the command of Moses and the Doctrine of the Teachers that urged it as necessary for justification and salvation For herein 1. they have many of the best sort of Protestant Writers on their side 2. They have these Reasons for them 1. Because the exhortation Gal. 5 1. is inferred from his determination in the precedent Chapter from v 21 to the end to wit that the Covenant of the Law did beget to bondage and that they were children of the free woman and therefore the yoke of bondage is not simply Circumcision as acted but as Mr. Dicson expresseth it the yoke of the Covenant of Works and legal Ceremonies 2. Because if ye be circumcised v. 2. is expounded rightly if ye be willingly circumcised upon the opinion and according to the Doctrine of the false Teachers to seek justification thereby as the reasons of the Apostle v. 3. 4 do evidently shew 3. Otherwise Timothy might be said to be entanged with the yoke of bondage when he was circumcised Acts 16. 3. which being so this Argument as all the rest of Mr. Bs. Arguments is against him For if the false Teachers were the same and the yoke the same Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1. and the yoke Gal. 5. 1. be not Circumcision as acted on infants but the Covenant of Works and Circumcision as taught and yielded to by the circumcised under the notion of necessity for justification and obligation thereby to keep the whole Law then the yoke was not that which is put on infants nor any infants meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. SECT XIII The Arguments are vindicated which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. BUt Mr. B. proceeds Well but Mr. T. hath one argument for his conceit and but one that I have heard and that is like the conceit it self If saith he putting on the yoke be onely by teaching then the yoke it self is onely the Doctrine and consequently it was to be put on none but those that could be taught Answ. 1. I deny both the Consequences and he will never prove them For 1. by putting he confesseth is meant an endeavour to put therefore it must be more than bare Doctrine And if by Doctrine they perswade the People of the necessity of practice in so doing they put on them both the mis-belief and the practice Answ. Mr. B. it seems either did not reade or not heed or forgot what was in Examen pag. 135. when he saith he had heard but of one Argument for my conceit though it be his meer ignorance that makes him call it my conceit as if it were my peculiar conceit whereas his own conceit is scarce any thing older than himself and mine agreeable to the Exposition of the best and elder Interpreters And however when Mr. B. wrote this he might know of no more Arguments against his conceit yet there are more iâ— my Antidote sect 6. to which with this here I shall review his Answers My Argument in form is this They onely are meant by Disciples Acts 15 10. who were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted that is of that which they would have done to them But no infants were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted that is of that which they would have done to them Ergo. The major is plain to common understanding according to all Rules of Logick and Grammar So we argue they must be meant by all men John 12. 32. when Christ saith I will draw all men to me who were the subjects recipient of the act of drawing Every particular man is not the subject of Christs drawing therefore all men doth not note every particular man Innumerable such Arguments are among Writers Ecclesiastical and Civil nor is there any thing more plain to common understanding The minor is proved thus the onely act of the false Teachers by which the yoke was to be put on Disciples was teaching or that which they would have done to them was onely teaching But of this act no infant was the passive subject Ergo. The former is confessed by himself in calling it perswading and if it were not the Text proves it v. 1. 5 24 The minor is manifest they were neither capable of it nor were the false Teachers so sensless as to endeavour it But let 's view Mr. Bs. Answer He denies this consequence if the putting on the yoke be onely by teaching then the yoke it self is onely the Doctrine But this is not my consequence but this if their act of putting on the yoke were onely Teaching then the terminus at least immediate must be Doctrine in respect of the agent and in respect of the patient learning as if the act of the Sun be Teaching the immediate terminus is heat although other effects follow as dryness or the like so if the false Teachers did put the yoke on the Disciples by Teaching they did put Doctrine on them and if they received it they learned that Doctrine although other effects followed as disquietnes of minde c. which may be comprehended under the metaphor of a yoke By Teaching parents an infant is not cut or cicumcised no not though the parents receive the Doctrine he may have no childe to circumcise or no strength or the like no though it come to pass that the childe be circumcised yet this is not done by the false Teacher but by the parent If then their act was onely teaching then the product result or terminus must be Doctrine though there were other consequents to follow But Mr. B. denies also this consequence that if the yoke
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
The end signification and engagement go into the definition of Circumcision And if from hence you would infer that it is onely the aged that are capable of signification and engagement you may strait conclude that no infant was ever circumcised I reply it is no fiction of mine but a truth whether Mr. B. talked or thought of it or no that all the colour that is shew of reason Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants Disciples is in taking the yoke for the cutting off a little skin For his proof is from what was done or endeavored to be done to infants but that was onely the cutting the little skin Mr. B. would have the yoke to be actual Circumcision or Circumcision as acted and that was nothing but the cutting off the litle skin It is true Circumcision in the users is more than the cutting off the little skin there is the end signification and intended engagement but as infants receive it as it is acted on infants the yoke can be no more than the loss of the skin and the soreness following they neither are taught nor discern the end signification or engagement and Circumcision as it includes these is as I say in my Antidote Circumcision not as acted on infants but taught persons of years nor was it my objection that Circumcision as a Sacrament was onely the cutting off a little skin but as it was acted on infants and the imagined â—oke endeavored to be put on infants Acts 15. 10. which sure Peter never blamed them for and therefore it is not the yoke there meant Mr. Bs. talk of Circumcision as a Sacrament and what is the definition of it as a Sacrament as it leades to a dispute about the notion of a word not found in Scripture so being besides the present business I shall let it pass Lastly I added that if it were granted that the term Disciples Acts 15. 10 noted infants then onely male infants for they onely were to be circumcised therefore female infants should not be thence proved Disciples nor to be baptized To this he answers That is as much as I needed when my position was that some infants are Disciples and to be baptized I reply It is not as much as he needed unless he understood his position onely of some male infants 2. Saith he I should hence prove that if males are Disciples then certainly females both being Church-members till Christ though but one circumcised I reply 1. It is more than he can prove that those who were Church-members in the Jewish Church are Disciples of Christ in the New Testament to be baptized 2. If he could prove it yet not from Acts 15. 10. it being certain no more can be proved thence to be Disciples than are there called Disciples which Mr. B. himself will not say of female infants I conclude still that in this arguing of Mr. B. I finde nothing but froward and I had almost said impudent wrangling against a plain truth that the Disciples Acts 15. 10. were onely the brethren converted and the yoke the Doctrine the false Teachers would have put upon them and the reader of whosoever education or tuâ—â—â—age if he be not otherwise blinded may perceive with his own eys the slightiness of Mr. Bs. arguings and how superficially he hath handled this business I go on to review the next which is no better SECT XIV Infants discipleship is not proved by Mr. B. from Lev. 25 41 42. which speaks of the Israelites being Gods servants MY second Argument saith Mr. B. to prove that some infants are Disciples is this If no infants are Disciples then it is either because they are not capable or else because God will not shew them such a mercy But neither of these can be the cause Therefore that no infants are Disciples is false Doctrine Mr. T. to this gave this Answer that the reason why they are not Disciples is because they have not learned Answ. It is true in the dispute at Bewdley finding Mr. Bs. vein of disputing to run upon a captious way of endeavouring to bring me to such absurdities â—n appearance as would stir up passions in hearers against me as lessening Gods mercy to their infants and then aggravating these imagined absurdities turning to the people with his wonted exclamations and other Rhetorick whereby he hath befooled not onely those parts but a great number of shallow heads throughout the Land which I found to be his course in his first argument in ch 6. now printed to prove his Ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants unrepealed with which he began when he should have first proved such an Ordinance and its continuing in force out of Scripture it being an indirect way though popular and taking to prove a thing done by God because we conceive it fit to be done and having been tired with answering three or four hours his long hypothetical Syllogismes and those somtimes brought to prove an hypothetical proposition contrary to the use of schools not allowing me to ask a question for clearing his termes neither allowing me time to consider of his reasonings nor at first liberty of repeating I did thus answer to this argument hoping though 〈◊〉 vain to reduce him to a proof of infants of Discipleship from the notation or use of the word which is the onely genuine and clear way of proving infants to be Disciples ordinarily to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 1â— But alas saith Mr. B. that such an answer should satisfy such a man I reply Alas that such an answer should not satisfy such a man Is this any third cause saith Mr. B. Answ. What need any man assigne any cause at all why infants are not Disciples but because the term Disciple agrees not to them If Mr. B. should prove in like manner infants to be believers what need the respondent shew any other cause than this that they have not faith so even sith Mr. B. himself acknowledgeth the term Disciple pag. 92. to have its denomination from the act of learning it is a sufficient yea the most direct and proper way to shew infants not Disciples because they have not the act of learning which 〈◊〉 B. should have overthrown if he would have proved as he should infants to be Disciples But then he might have been hindered in his vagaries and popular discourses which with his Rhetorical exclamations were that he most minded to use and been brought to discover his nonsense acception of the word Disciple But saith he or is it not evidently reducible to one of the former For if their unlearnedness hinder them from being Disciples either it must be because it maketh them or sheweth them uncapable or because God will not shew the unlearned so great mercy Answ. It is neither because unlearnedness maketh or sheweth them uncapable nor because God will not shew them that mercy But because what ever their capacity be or Gods intent toward them they have
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
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
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
Sect. 92. he sayth Baptism is a Sacrament that Sacrament an institution of Christ that institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth but onely in the positive will of Christ and so that there is nothing considerable in this question or any of this nature but how it was delivered by Christ. And Sect. 94. that which was done by the Apostles if it were not a Rule for ever yet was an effect of such a Rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so And Practical Catech. lib. 6. sect 2. he expounding Christs institution sayth that the words import that the person baptized acknowledgeth maketh profession of believing in three delivers himself to three as Authors of his faith and to be ruled by the direction of this Master and this he will have to be meant by baptizing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Whence I infer that if baptism be a Sacrament and made so by Christs institution and that institution founded onely in his positive will and the will of Christ be that baptism be into the name of the Trinity and this is when the baptized makes profession of believing in three to be ruled by them and the Apostles practice interprets Christs rule no infant that doth not profess faith is baptized into the name of the Trinity nor was appointed to be baptized by Christ nor did the Apostles baptize them and therefore they are not baptized according to Christs institution and so no Sacrament to them Yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of baptism they usurp upon Christs prerogative who baptize otherwise than Christ hath appointed then if the precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infantbaptsm which the Doctor ingenuously acknowledgeth it doth by manifest consequence deny it sith he forbids that to be done otherwise han he hath appointed when he hath determin'd how it should be done The Doctor when he sayth above the words I baptize into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost must be indispensably used me thinks by the same reason should conceive Christs institution should be unalterably used in baptizing those onely whom he hath appointed to be baptized But let us consider what shift the Doctor makes to elude the force of Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. that it may not be thought to exclude infants from baptism I grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best rendred make Disciples and like it well that he acknowledgeth makes Disciples and baptizeth John 4. 1. is all one with making Disciples baptizing them Matth. 28. 19. But I deny 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well paraphrased by receive into Discipleship all Nations baptizing them in the Name c. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them For by it the making Disciples is made the same with receiving into Discipleship or receiving Disciples and baptism the ceremony of receiving into Discipleship which is as truly the act of the baptized thereby professing or avouching his Discipleship 2. That the making or receiving Discipleship supposeth not any precedent instruction but looks wholly on it as subsequent For 1. that which in Matthew is expressed by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature which shews how they should disciple all Nations Now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made Disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving Disciples Matth. 28. 19. supposeth precedent instruction 2. Such as the making Disciples was Ioh. 4. 1. such is the making Disciples Mat. 28. 19. For by the Doctors confession they are all one But that was by preaching as is plain concerning Iohn Matth. 3. 1 2 5 6. and concerning the Apostles Mat. 10. 5 6 7. Ergo. Whence 3. I further argue That way the Apostles were to disciple all Nations by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel but that was by preaching Ergo discipling supposeth precedent instruction 4. From the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so is used Matth. 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last Translators and can be no otherwise rendred than made a Disciple by teaching So Acts 14. 21. it is sayd Having preacht the Gospel to that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having taught or made many Disciples Whence 5. it may appear how the Apostles understood the Precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons and thereby make them Disciples 6. A Disciple and a believer appear to be the same by comparing Matth. 28. 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. For as the way of making Disciples is more fully expressed by preaching the Gospel so the Disciple to be baptized is expressed by the believer which is put before baptism Nor is it against this that after baptism they are to be taught Matth. 28. 20. For that teaching is expressed to be the teaching the observation of all that he commanded But the teaching that makes Disciples is the preaching the Gospel So that the plain order and meaning of Christs words is this that 1. the Apostles should not stay onely within the Land of Israel but go into all the World 2. That they should by preaching the Gospel declaring that Jesus was the Christ make them Disciples that is taught concerning Christ or believers in him 3. That they should baptize them 4. That they should then teach them to observe all his commands Now infants are not made Disciples by preaching the Gospel therefore by Christs institution not appointed to be baptized and therefore are baptized without his warrant and consequently unlawfully What Dr. Hammond sayth sect 26. were it all granted him yet it would no whit avail to prove that an infant may be a Disciple appointed by Christ to be baptized For let putting to school be as early as the Doctor will imagine yet none is put to school till he doth know his Teacher and so none is Christs Disciple in the Scripture-language till he know Jesus to be Christ and take him for his Lord which infants being not capable of they are not Disciples nor to be baptized according to Christs appointment What he adds s. 27 28. is not right For 1. it is not true that a Disciple and a Proselyte are perfectly all one For a Proselyte notes one that is by birth an alien from the Common-wealth of Israel and comes to the Israelites to own their God and be part of their policy not to be taught but to enjoy privileges with other Jews whether Civil or Ecclesiastical There is no mention of the Disciples of the Priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces But a Disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his Teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benifits Nor doth the Holy Ghost at any time call Christians Christs
proselytes but his Disciples that we might not confound the notions of these terms And though the origination of the word proselyte be from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come to and Christ saith Suffer little children to come to me and this infers their capacity of proselytism and the next words For of such is the Kingdom of God suppose them particularly qualified for it yet that coming and imagined proâ—elytism being onely for ablessing by prayer and laying on of hands not to be made Disciples or baptized this will not prove them capable of being made Disciples according to Christs appointment till by hearing the Gospel they own Christ as their Master The like may be said of the entering into Covenant Deut. 29. 10. which though in some sense it should be yielded that infants may enter into Covenant that is by their parents act engaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into Covenant v. 15. yet this is insufficient to prove that such an entering into Covenant makes infants Disciples or subjects of baptism according to Christs appointment For in it such a discipling is injoyned as is by Preaching the Gospel and they onely are Disciples to be baptized who are believers and they onely are appointed to be baptized who in their own persons do enter into Covenant or engage themselves to be Christs followers SECT XXVI Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor from Sayings of Ancients proves that the Apostles baptized infants HEreto Dr. Hammond adds to confirm his opinion of Christs intention to include infants in the institution of baptism for all Nations and not to exclude them from it the passage 1 Cor. 7. 14. in which he imagines is a remain and footstep of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants 2. The practice of the first and purest Ages of the Church which received infants to baptism and either by so doing testifie the Apostolical usage transcribed by them or else affirm that they received it by tradition from the Apostles In both which how he is mistaken remains to be shewed First he sets down this which he cais A brief Paraphrase though it be too large for a Paraphrase and takes in more than he can with any colour shew to have any thing in the Text answering to it His words of Paraphrase of 1 Corinth 7. 12 13 14. are these Vers. 12. If any Christian Husband hath an heathen Wife and she be desirous to continue with him he ought not to put her away unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ. Vers. 13. And so in like manner for the Christian Wife that is married to an Infidel if he be desirous to live with her let her by no means separate from him Vers. 14. For beside the command of Christ Matth. 5. 32. which obligeth to this other advantages there are of the believers living with the unbeleiver worth considering For by this means it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and considering the efficacy of good example 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal and consequent endeavours and diligence that by the Law of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him as a Wife is there is great reason of hope that still it may be so that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever and the intuition of that more than possible effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily And this one consideration viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer 1 Pet. 3. 1. should gain i. e. bring the unbeliever to the faith and the reasonable presumption that it will be so is the reason why the young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers are yet admitted to baptism because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith and kept from heathen pollutions and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents doth reasonably presume they will And upon this ground it is that though the children of Christians are yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism Answer This Paraphrase is many ways faulty and far from the meaning of the Apostle 1. It puts in many things as explicatory of the Text to which there is nothing answerable in the Apostles words For 1. there is nothing that answers to by this means it hath oft come to pass Nor 2. to these words by the company and conversation of the believer yea the term believer is quite omitted by the Apostle which considering the term unbeliever twice expressed seems to have been done wittingly that it might not be taken that he ascribed the sanctification to the faith of the one party Surely when men specially in Arguments place the force of a reason in a term they use not to omit it as the Apostle doth here but to express it remarkably and with Emphasis 3. All the words and considering the efficacy of good Example 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal and consequent endeavours and diligence that by the Laws of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near to him as a Wife is there is great reason of hope that it still may be so that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever and the intuition of that more than possibly effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily are added without any thing in the least intimated by the words of the Text but the contrary even according to his exposition who makes the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified refer to some past known Examples and therfore the forepart of the verse hath not at all that which answers to on presumption c. there is great reason of hope c. which import a contingent event for the future not a thing past which is always certain 4. The term young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers is more and otherwise than is in the Text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy nor doth it appear that your doth imply they were considered as Christians so as that there should be this construction your children are holy because they are children of Christians distinguishingly from infidels but your children that is the children of you that doubt who have had unbelieving husbands and wives and have had or may have children by them So that the term your onely notes the particularity and individuation of the persons and if considered in any respect besides it is their doubting condition or their having unbelieving
yoke-fellows 5. There is nothing to answer those words because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith and kept from heathen pollutions and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents doth reasonably presume they will 6. Nor is there any thing answering to these words your children which his own Paraphrase applies to Christians children So that the Doctors Paraphrase is beyond measure culpable in respect of addition 2. It is blameable also in omitting that which the Text expresly and emphatically mentions to wit the terms Wife Husband when he sayth the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and after the probability that the conversation of the believer should bring the unbeliever to the faith which may be meant of a companion brother father mother neighbour 3. There is much faultiness in quite altering the importance of the Apostles words by substituting instead of were or should be in the Apostles words ought to be they will be in the Paraphrase Which is the more blameable in that himself Sect. 82 pag. 257. doth more truly retain the force of those expressions in the Apostle when he sayth The method of the Apostle must needs be this unless there were c. ' â—would certainly follow that their children were unclean so that the pretended brief Paraphrase of the Apostles words is very faulty far from the Rule of a Paraphrase and instead of explaining doth quite pervert the meaning of the words 2. For many other reasons the exposition of the Doctor cannot be right For 1. In his paraphrase of the Apostles resolution v. 12. he puts ought and of v. 13. let her by no means as if the Apostle did make it a necessary duty that they must continue together whereas the Apostle answerably to their doubt doth onely resolve them of the lawfulness of their continuing together not of the necessity of it and so v. 14. is a reason of the lawfulness of it notwithstanding their doubt which appears from the resolution v. 15. If the unbeliever will depart let him depart which cannot be expounded otherwise than thus you are not bound to stay as you are not bound to cause her to depart or to relinquish him you are at your liberty For the very next words a Brother or Sister is not under bondage in such cases do shew that the resolution was of liberty not of duty contrary to the Doctors paraphrase Now that resolution v. 15. is of the same form with his determination v. 12 13. 2. He makes the resolution to be of a duty v. 12 13. yet makes v. 14. to be a motive of the will when he saith may reasonably move as if the Apostle were not deciding a doubt but perswading the will and that from such a thing as cannot be reason of duty or liberty but as it is by him expounded a perswasive to win on the affections not to settle the judgment and yet p. 207. he saith the unbeliever having been sanctified by the believer is used as an argument why they should live together 3. He puts unbelieving Husband v. 14. as if he were another than he that is mentioned v. 13. for v. 13. the unbelieving husband was at that present an unbeliever But according to his sense expounding v. 14. thus it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer the unbelleving husband must be meant of one that was once an unbeliever not so then Now then the Apostle should after this exposition give a reason why the present believing wife need not leave her husband because another unbelieving husband by another believing wife hath been brought to the faith Which wherein it could tend to any satisfaction for them that doubted whether they might lawfully live together because of the present unbelief of the yoke-fellow I see not 4. Such a reason will appear the more unlikely to be satisfactory because as it hath often happened that the unbeliever hath been won by the wife so it hath often happened to the contrary and it is likely the persons whom he resolved had complained that they had small hopes of their husbands conversion and so the reason of their living together from experience would be more likely to be retorted back thus You perswde us to live together you tell us we may because it often comes to pass that the unbeliever is brought to the faith But our experience is to the contrary we see many not converted and our own are obstinate and hardned and therefore this reason doth disswade us and resolve us that we may not live with him 5. Hence another exception is against this exposition that it makes the Apostle to resolve them of their duty or liberty by that which was a meer contingent event which might be or not be For this exposition makes the reason of their living together to be from what had hapened might be whereas a contingent event is impertinent to that end to say we may lawfully do such a thing because its likely such a good effect may follow A contingent event is unfit to resolve of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a thing without some other rule things being unlawfull or lawfull not according to disagreement from or agreement to Gods will of purpose what shall be but his will of Command what he requires to be omitted or done Besides this contingent event here was uncertain as appears v. 16. what knowest thou implies thou canst not tell whether thou shalt save thy husband Perhaps thou mayst Nor doth the Apostle mention any promise it should be so but mentions it onely as a contingent event that might be or not be 6. Besides it is from such an event as is impertinent to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of living together For the past conversion of others and the future conversion of our own yoke-fellows is meerly extrinsecal to our duty or liberty though it be much to our conveniency and therefore it is fitly urged v. 16. after the resolution of the judgment v. 12 13 14 15. Is there any shew of reason why I should live with my own unbelieving husband because anothers unbelieving husband was converted by her or because there is great reason of hope it will be so with mine This would intimate that future events make our present state or acts lawfull or unlawfull which is somewhat like the Turks conceit who judged that pleaseth God which succeeds prosperously and that to displease which fals out unhappily 7. According to this Exposition v. 14. should be the same Argument with v. 16. and so there should be an unnecessary repetition of the same Argument 8. By this exposition the sanctifying of an unbeliever should be ascribed to a woman whereas though I deny not that she is
said to save v. â—6 to win 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert James 5. 20. sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God 9. The word holy is expounded in a sense no where else found nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle ch 1. 13 14 15 16 17. 12. 13. For he expounds holy by are admitted to baptism and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere when there was another term baptized used in the same Epistle and familiar to them 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow even by the endeavour of a Father Mother Brother Sister Companion especially a Preacher of the Gospel So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together because one may bring the other to the faith the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter Son and Mother Brother and Sister Companions Preacher and people to couple or live together because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism Himself pag. 257. saith This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing unless there were some hope that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to tâ—â— saith ' twâ—â—lâ— certainly follow their children were unclean that is not admitted to baptism Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted or without hopes or reasonable presumption that he might be won to the faith by the believer It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief And for the other proposition it is a like false that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note as much as hoc posito upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving yoke-fellow and experience of what happened the Corinthian believers yonger children noâ— deemed yet believers were admitted to baptism or were reasonably presumed to be admitted or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists though I know none that so interpret it I use his own words pag. 257. sect 82. mutatis mutandis Now I demand of this pretended interpretation whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer and the other an unbeliever could it of them be concluded if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers as if the childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer and hopes it should be so It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow and hopes so of theirs 12. Unto all these I add that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any Sure I am Augustin tom 7. de pecâ— merito remiss c. 26. saith Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo pâ—ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase Sect. 32. he speaks thus That this is the true importance of the Apostles words and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident First by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English But sayth he It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages even in the Greek though it abound in Tenses above other Languages In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Dr.