Assertion is manifest in that though it is more to be of the invisible Church than of the visible yet that which denominates a person of the visible Church doth not agree always to a member of the invisible Church But Mr. B. thinks the contrary to be true and accordingly frames an explication of what it is to be a member of the Church visible which I must not call a definition for that is excepted against by him Praefestin Morator sect 11. as if in Logick any descriptions or explications of words or things were not usually called definitions though imperfect Let 's examine it however He tels us here what it is to be a visible Church-member which because he doth elsewhere more fully express I shall have an eye on the writings elsewhere and so much the rather because in this mistake of his lieth much of the fallacy of Mr. Bs. second Argument In his Praefest Morator sect 11. He saith when he distinguisheth the Church into visible and invisible He doth not divide the genus into the species sed aequivocum in sua aequivocata but I think he is mistaken in this for then a term is equivocal as Arist. Categ in the beginning tels us When the name is onely common but not the reason of being or the definition according to that name but the definition of the Church of Christ even that which Mr. B. himself saith All Divines are agreed on plain Scripture c. pag. 82. that it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world doth agree to the visible Church and therefore the term Church of Christ is not an equivocal term but a genus whether univocal or analogum And I add saith he that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical or that the name is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible Answ. I grant that the Church invisible is famosius or primarium Analogatum that is the invisible Church is more truly or in a greater degree of propriety Christs Church than the visible yet do not think the name of the Church is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible For the original meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Church being an assembly or meeting or congregation of people in one place who are an object visible I conceive that the term Church first agrees to the visible Church and secondarily to the invisible yea in exact speech the invisible Church now are called the Church in order to their meeting or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or General assembly at the last day for Heb. 12. 23. these are joined together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the General assembly and Church or as it is termed 2 Thess. 2. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our gathering together unto Christ at which time the visible Church and invisible will be all one visible company 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one sheepfold one Shâ—pheard John 10. 16. nor do I conceive the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical but because by their words and actions discernible by sense they own Christ as their Lord without any consideration of their election or reprobation sincerity or hypocrisy Christs approbation or non-approbation of them And that the seeming to other men to be of the invisible Church is not the reason of the appellation of a visible Church or Church-member I gather hence becaus a person may seem to be of the invisible Church yea may be known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect as for instance Jacob and John Baptist in their mothers womb seemed yea were known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect Luke 1. 15. yet not of the visible For sure they were not visible Church-members when they were not visible men Yea there may be many visible men who may seem with great probability upon signs of their conversion wrought on them to be of the invisible Church and not of the visible as a number of Indians hearing Mr. Eliat or Mr. Mayhew preach and shewing affection by tears smiting of their breasts lifting up their eys to Heaven and such like actions have seemed from these sensible expressions of their own to be elect persons such as God intended to save and yet I think no man will say that at that time they were visible Church-members till they afterwards made profession of faith in Christ. Mr. B. goeth on thus So that if you ask me whether it be certain or onely probable that infants are members of the visible Church I say certain Answ. If Mr. B. mean it of the sorts or as he cals it species of infants it may easily appear by this Review that it is so far from being certain that infants are members of the visible Church Christian that it hath scarse a shew of probability If he mean it of the individuals I say that according to Mr. Bs. own sayings there is no certainty that any infant is a visible Church-member For according to him to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven But this belonging in seeming appearance or to the judgment of man is uncertain it s but a judgment of probability which any man hath of any mans belonging to the invisible Church Mr. B. himself plain Scripture c. p. 73. sayth Therefore even Cardinal Cuâ—anus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs Therefore there is no certainty of it that any particular infant is a visible Church-member If it be sayd that the seeming is certain though it be not certain that they belong to the invisible Church I reply so it may be sayd that if Turks infants seem to be of the visible Church though to a fool or frantick man the seeming is certain But I suppose Mr. B. means that it is certain and not onely probable to considerate men to whom things are not certain of which they have not certain evidence that infants are visible Church-members But this understanding it of particulars is not certain upon any good evidence that they are members of the Church invisible and therefore it is not certain they are visible church-members sith by Mr. Bs. description to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible Church and therefore as the seeming to be of the invisible Church is so is the visibility both uncertain and as most probable and so all baptizing of infants is upon uncertain grounds and therefore a man cannot do it in faith he being uncertain he doth his duty which thing is also made good elsewhere from Mr. Bs. concessions Antipaedobapt part 1. sect 35. But Mr. B. thinks he hath sure grounds and therefore
he added If you ask me what is it that directly or immediatly constituteth them such members I answer their visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ This performed by the parent for them is it on their part supposing Christs title to them and the offer of himself in Covenant Answ. I grant that the visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ doth make the persons so ingaging freely seriously soberly and understandingly visible Church-members But that the parents performing this for the childe doth make the infants such directly and immediately is an assertion not proved by Mr. B. nor is it true nor consistent with the descriptions of the visible Church and sayings about it which Protestants of note give nor doth it as here and elsewhere set down by Mr. B. yield any sure ground to know certainly any particular infant to be a visible Church-member That I may make good these in their order Two things are supposed and one thing named as directly and immediately constituting infants visible Church-members The things supposed are 1. Christs title to them 2. The offer of himself in Covenant to them But there is nothing but ambiguity in these expressions For 1. it is uncertain whether he mean that these are supposed when the parent doth perform the engagement for the childe that Christ hath a title to them and that he doth offer himself in Covenant to them or whether he mean that the parents engagement doth constitute the childe a visible Church member if Christ have a title to it and offer himself in Covenant to it If in the former sense then it had been enough to have mentioned the parents act without that supposition if in the later then what ever the parents act be yet no man is certain of the childes visible Church-membership by it alone without the other two 2. What title of Christ to them he means whether by election and gift of his Father to him or by his Spirit which he that hath not is none of his Rom. 8. 9. or what other title he means I am uncertain 3. What Covenant he means whether the absolute Covenant of grace belonging to the elect or the conditional Covenant to all upon condition of faith or the national Covenant made to Abraham and the people of Israel oâ— what other besides I cannot tell how to determine 4. How the Covenant is offered except by Preaching to them or by some secret work of the Spirit I cannot imagine 5. It is somewhat uncertain whether the external engagement that may make the infant a visible Church-member must not be of a parent that is a real and sincere believer or whether a dogmatical faith serves turn Sure in his plain Scrip. c. chap. 29. part 1. He makes a real faith necessary in the parent to that sanctification without which the childe is not holy that is a visible Church-member 6. Whether he make the parents engagement to constitute immediately infants born or unborn also visible Church-members is uncertain Le ts see what we can gather elsewhere I cannot for present find a place where he more fully expresseth himself than in his plain scrip c. pag. 336. of the first edition whereas saith he some stick at it that I make the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent I answer them 1. That it is evident in all the Scripture that God putteth a very great difference between the children of the faithfull and other mens Which I grant but withall that this is true onely of the sincerely faithfull and not onely inexternal profession and yet not so as to count any a visible Church-member in the Christian Church for the parents faith 2. Saith he that he maketh such promises to them and giveth them such privileges as I have exprest in this Book But if he mean by the promises those of the Covenant of grace I say they are made onely to elect and true believers if other promises of temporal blessings they are not made to the children of meer seeming believers but true believers nor do they at all reach to visible Church-membership or Justification of children These privileges are no where promised to the children of believing Christians though sincere meerly because of their parents faith And therefore that which he adds 3. That this is to them as they are the children of the people who believe is false And when he saith 4. And that he never requireth any condition inherent in the infant that I finde in Scripture yet others conceive an inherent condition required in an infant Heb. 12. 14. and elsewhere But he adds And doth not this plainly tell us that the parents faith is the condition if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the father entering it for him and his Deut. 29. If the parent be not a believer the childe is left out And what other condition can be imagined Answ. If the Scripture had required no inherent condition in the infant yet it had not followed that the parents faith is the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification For there are other ways to wit their election Christs death for them which are a vouched as sufficient to their justification without the consideration either of any inherent condition in the infant or the parents faith Nor is it true that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering it for him and his and that if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out For if it be meant of the Covenant of grace it is most false that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant Esau was the childe of Isaac a believer Ishmael of Abraham yet neither entered into the Covenant of grace neither justified by the parents faith if it were so then they were entered into the Covenant of grace and justified and after outâ—d which infers falling from grace Not is there any such Covenant of visible Church-membership which if the parent be a believer the childe iâ— entered in Nor is there a word Deut. 29. to prove it There is nothing there set down but a narration of Moses his â—enewing the Covenant with the children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. It is true it is said v. 10 11 12 13. They stood all before the Lord the Commandors and the men then the litle ones wives strangers hewers of wood drawers of water that they might enter into Covenant but that 1. The parents peculiarly as parents did enter into Covenant for their children appears not but rather that the entering of the Covenant was by the Rulers in behalf of the subject as the league with the Gibeonites was by the Princes in behalf of Israel whereto they were bound Josh. 9. 15 19.
and they were baptized and this must be a rule to us now about baptism of water appointed by Christ which was sayd of het similitudinary baptism then sith the same are meant by Fathers v. 3 4. and they are sayd to eat the same spiritual meat and drink which was Christ which is manifestly meant of the Lords Supper by the same reason which Mr. Bailee brings infants must not be excluded from the Lords Supper Yea but saith Dr. Homes They did not eat all the Lords Supper Refut They did all eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink which if he deny to be meant of the Lords Supper he deserts Protestants and other Divines acknowledging it and may be refuted from the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that they had in a sort in respect of signification and use the same Sacraments with ours and yet were not secured thereby when they sinned But Mr. Cobbet says There must be a Synecdoche in the later not all the Fathers simply being meant but such as were capable of making a spiriual use thereof Refut If all our Fathers must be meant Synecdochically v. 3 4. then also in v. 2. it being the same term in either and the sense of them v. 5. being meant of as many v. 3 4 as v. 2. Yea but there 's a bar put against infants receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. Refut There are more bars and more express put against infants baptism Acts 8. 37. Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. Ephes. 4. 5 c. which it seems Paedobaptists will leap over or break down notwithstanding they are so plainly set up by Christ and his Apostles to prevent their infant-baptism That which Mr. Ainsworth in his Dialogue brings out of Psalm 77. 17. to prove that the Israelites were indeed formally baptized with water is upon mistake that the water there poured out was on the Israelites whereas his own Annotations on the places and the words of the Psalm refer it to what was done to the Egyptians Exod. 14. 24 25. And thus Junius and others conceive it Yet were it granted him there must be a Synecdoche in the term all the Fathers for the reasons given and otherwise beasts as well as infants must be sayd to be baptized SECT XXII Mr. Blakes Argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered MR. Blake had in his Birth-privilege pag. 9. argued from Gal 4. 29. for infant-baptism and his passages in his arguing I censured as very gross in my Examen part 3. sect 2. which he seeks to make good Answer to my Letter cap. 4. to which I reply in my Postscript sect Yet he hath thought good to reinforce his allegation of that Text and in his Vindic. Foed cap. 43. sect 1. he argues thus Fourthly They that by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church have right to baptism but infants by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church Gal. 4. 29. Infants therefore ought to be baptized To which I answer if he mean by the Church the Church Christian visible and by being in the bosom of it having actual visible Church membership I grant the major and deny the minor and for the Text Gal. 4. 29 alleged to prove it am no more induced by Mr. Bls. arguings to believe that it makes to his purpose than I am to think the Snow is black For if it were to his purpose the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have this sense even so now infants by virtue of birth according to the flesh as being the children of a believer by natural generation are visible members in the Christian Church v. g. of Galatia which is as far from the meaning of the Apostle as East from West if either I or those Interpreters I meet with have not lost their common sense This I prove from the true supplement which must make up the words complete sense This will be understood by considering that the whole verse is a compound proposition of that sort which Logicians call comparative as 1 Cor. 15. 22. The terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do shew it to be a comparative proposition and therein are two parts the first called the Protasis then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit that is for I think Mr. Bl. will not gain say this exposition Ishmael who was born after the flesh being the son of 〈◊〉 the bond-woman persecuted whether by mocking or by some crafty undermining device as Heinsius conceives Isaac who was born after the Spirit by Divine virtue according to the promise as Grotius I conceive rightly explains it The other part is called the Apodosis or rendering wherein that which answers to the forepart first held out is expressed now that always notes some agreement correspondence parity or likeness whether in quantity quality action c. But according to Mr. Bls. apodosis or reddition there is no such answerableness or likeness as hath the shew of a comparison of things equal or alike as this is as the affirmative terms shew For who would conceive any better then nonsence in such a speech as this even as Ishmael persecuted Isaac so the children of Christian believers are visible members in the Christian Church it were all one as to say even as Esau hated Jacob so godly men are heirs of Heaven or have access to God the absurdity of which is so gross that I am amazed Mr. Bl. doth not see it or will not confess it there being no likeness or shew of answerablenes either in the compared subjects or in the compared predicates Not in the subjects For in the forepart the term he that was born after the flesh is taken in the worser part as a term importing debasement bondage a curse but in Mr. Bls. own expression Vindic. foed ch 40. the term he that is born after the flesh notes in the better part a natural seed that inheriâ—s outward privilges yea and that no small one to be a visible Church-member by vertue of birth after the flesh And then in the predicates there is less answerablenes For what answerablenes between persecuting him that was born after the Spirit who resembles the true believer and having right to outward privileges as visible Church-membership and baptism by being born of a believer according to the flesh by natural generation and this competent to infants But the supplement is this Even so now the Jew who is carnal seeking righteousness by observing the Law and nâ—â— through the Spirit waiting for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith now persecuteth by words and deeds the Christian believer whether Jew or Gentile who is born after the Spirit that is who by the Spirit doth wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5 5. This supplement is cleared to be genuine from the scope and series of the Apostles Doctrine before and
Exod 23. 17 observes yet they appeared in the name of females and their females and children were in Covenant together with them Deut. 29. 11. so that as the rest of the prophecies to which Mr. T. hath nothing to say so these two prophecies against which he excepts speak fully for the discipling of nations in the New Testament times Answ. Mr. Blake construes my omitting to except against the allegation of the other prophecies besides Psalm 72. 11. Psalm 86. 9. as if I had nothing to reply whereas being indeed in that writing necessitated to be brief I thought best to answer those that seemed to have most shew for him But now he is answered in all I said I marvelled he was not ashamed to produce them as he did but he seems past shame He saith Vindic. foed pag. 329. That an eminently learned man lately observed that I had donum impudentiae Who that eminently learned man is I know not nor do I care Till there be given a reason of this censure it cannot better me but will have a shew of malignancy to me if not vanity also in the Censurer and Relator And ill will seldome speaks well He may bestow his censure more rightly elsewhere I say still it is a shameful thing to abuse Scriptures as Mr. Blake doth to understand by nations the whole of the nation even infants when if they be so understood the Scripture should in that sense be most palpably false for it should foretell a thing that neither was nor will be I conceive myself not ignorant of what Mr. Blake saith and though I grant all he saith yet it covers no part of his shame in abusing the text For even in his allusion the whole of the nation females and infants did not appear before the Lord and therefore were the extent of the prophecies as large as that they are conceived to allude to yet the whole of the nation even infants were not included And this is enough to shew the futility of his talk about discipling nations which in his sense never was Nor is there one reason given by Mr. Blake for his exposition and reasons sufficient are given for mine and I may retort Mr. Bls. words upon him All indifferent men may challenge their reason that heed him and when I am taken with such frivolous dictates as his are I expect my friends should conclude that I doat SECT X. That infants of believers are not disciples appointed to be baptized Mat. 28. 19. THe last exception against the minor in my Argument that infants of believers are not disciples of Christ appointed to be baptized Mat. 28. 19. is by denying it and asserting on the contrary that they are disciples and appointed there to be baptized But this is so sorry a shift so contrary to the notation and use of the word in the New Testament in the text to the Apostles practice which best expounds Christs commission to their own or fellows confession elsewhere that it looks like the putting a face on a thing when there is small hope to hold it Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Presbyteries page 268. See you doubt not of a warrant for baptizing children who are not disciples For then the Apostles from this place had no warrant to baptize the infants of believers Nevertheless because such men as Mr. Cotton and Mr. Baxter have put this text in the front to prove infant-baptism by it I shall lay down sundry arguments against that abuse of the text and then examine what they say about this That our Lord Christ did not mean by disciples to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. infants either of believers or unbelievers I prove 1. from the notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verbal noun which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath learned Mr. B. Plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 92. acknowledgeth it to have denomination from the act of learning Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis pag. 205. They are still stiled in New Testament-Scriptures Believers from the faith that they profess Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged Disciples from the doctrine which they profess to learn and Christians from him whose they are whom they serve and from whom they expect salvation Whence I argue They are not disciples as Mat. 28. 19. who do not learn or profess the learning of Christs doctrine But infants do not learn Christs doctrine Ergo they are not disciples The major is proved from the notation and use of the word before confessed and intimated in that speech of the Apostle Eph. 4. 20 which shews that to be a Disciple is to be one that learns Christ. The minor is manifest from the want of capacity to learn and from sense to which it is apparent that they regard not heed not understand not any thing of Christ as by other signs so by the difficulty to teach them when they come to years To this what Mr. M. replies is answered before Mr. B. part 1. chap. 2. saith You must understand that one may be called a disciple 1. in a large sense relatively as being of the number of those that belong to Christ as Master and King of the Church and destinated or devoted to his oversight and rule and teaching for the future thus believers infants are disciples of which I shall give you proof anone 2. Sometimes the word is taken in a narrower sense for those who are actually learners But commonly applied to men at age it includeth both relation and subordination and also actual learing but the former principally but applied to infants it intendeth the relation at present and actual learning as one end of it intended for the future To which I reply 1. I take it for granted that it is sometimes taken for those who are actually learners 2. That the term disciple commonly applied to men of age includes actual learning 3. That applyed to infants it intendeth the relation as present and actual learning as one end of it intended for the future Wherein letting passe the uncouth expression that the word in tendeth an end and taking his meaning I observe First that he makes the term disciples to be meant in one manner when it is said of men of age and another when of infants Which me thinks is as absurd as that he chargeth Mr. Bedford with pag. 300. that he made one end of baptism in the aged another in infants one covenant to parents and another to infants as if the aged were one sort of disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. and yet the same word includes another sort of disciples in a clean different sense It would be known of which sort of disciples he understands it for certainly there is but one sort of disciples there mentioned and if he will stand to his words in that place he must understand it of disciples upon instruction Secondly That he sets down the sense of a word and yet produceth no place for the present where the distinction
may be a Scholar afore he learns serves not turn to avoyd the force of this Reason For the term Scholar coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leasure or vacation from other exercise may be without actual learning but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Verbal Noun from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath learned and Disciple à discendo from Learning and therefore as it is absurd to call one learned or a Learner without Learning so it is absurd to call one a Disciple without actual learning But I rest not on the notation alone but proceed to the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Disciple 2. I argue thus The word Disciple Matth. 28. 19. is to be understood as it is understood all along the New Testament But all along the New Testament it is applied to those that addicted themselves to some as Teachers followed them learned of them no where to an insant who doth none of these Ergo Infants are not Disciples meant Matth. 28. 19. The major is plain from the rule of understanding words that it is to be according to the use of them The minor is proved thus The Disciples of Christ are understood as the Disciples of Iohn and the Pharisees Luke 5. 33. as the Disciples of Moses Iohn 9 28. of the perverters Acts 20. 30. But in all these places and in all the rest they are termed Disciples of John the Pharisees Moses and the perverters who addicted themselves to them followed them learned of them no where an infant who doth none of these Therefore the term Disciples of Christ notes onely such and no where an infant 3. I argue thus They that are not termed believers are not Disciples But infants of believers are not termed believers Therefore they are not termed Disciples The Major is proved from the equipollence of the term Disciple and believers in the New Testament Calvin institut lib. 3. cap. 2. sect 6. Cur respondet quod passim Evangelistae sideles discipulos ponunt tanqu im synonyma ac-praesertim Lucas in Actis Apostolorum saepius Acts 6. 1 2 7. 9. 1 10 19 25 26 38. 11. 26 29. 13. 52. 14. 20 22 28. Which thing is strongly dispured by Chamier 2. Panst. Cath. tom 3. l. 12 c. 9. s. 15. against the Papists implicite saith that none are believers but disciples who learn and know Which he confirms from Matth. 28. 19. in these words Nimlrum disertum erat Christi mandatum Matth. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Docete sive discipulos facite omnes gentes The minor needs not proof believing being an act of the intellectual part supposing the use of reason which infants ordinarily have not at least in such things they cannot be sayd ordinarily to be behevers nor is the term believer any where in Scripture applied to them Rightly saith the same Chamier Panstr Cat. toâ— 4. l. 12. c. 9. sect 53. Infantes potentia tantùm sideles sunt actu nemo nisi adultiv 4. This is further confirmed by comparing Matth. 28 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. where the same Commission is expressed given at the same time in somwhat different words which therefore without all contradiction the one expound the other Now what is sayd Matth. 28 19. Make Disciple of all Nations is in Mark 16 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature and what is sayd Matth. 28 19. baptizing them is Mark 16. 16. Whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved which apparently shews that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them or Disciples are the same with believers and consiquently not insants 5. Which is further confirmed by Philips answer to the Eunuch 〈…〉 ling him that Actâ— 7. which shews that Philip understood Christs Commission to be to baptize believers and none else But infants are not such ordinarily Therefore they are not ordinarily to be baptized Mr. B. himself pag. 300. saith Now for the aged a Disciple and believer are all oâ—e Mark 16. â—6 what Mr. Blake speakes Vindic foed â—ag 4 3. of insants being Disciples as to the participatâ—â—n of Ordinances and elsewhere of being believers virtually though not formally is without Scripture proof which termes none Disciples 〈…〉 right to participate of ordinances but from Learning 〈…〉 believers who are not so formaly nor do I know 〈◊〉 w 〈…〉 infants may be called virtually believers Then 〈…〉 ing is sayd to be virtually such though not formally when it hath though not the quality in its kinde yet hath it ability to produce it as the sun they say is not hot in its self formally yet it is hot virtually because it can produce it in another But I presume he will no say this of an insant that he is virtually a believer because he can produce it in another If he mean it in another sense he should shew how an infant may be said to be virtually a believer and prove that sense out of Scripture and not abuse men with a nonsense distinction if he mean to cleer truth I shall need no better proof against him to shew infants are not to be termed Disciples and believers than his own words Vindic. Foed p. 205. All visible Professors that except the terms of the Covenent are believers Saints Disciples Christians so they are stiled in New Testament Scriptures believers from the faith that they profess Saints from the holiness to which they stand engaged Disciples from the Doctrine which they profess to learn and Christians from him whose they are whom they serve and from whom they expect salvation of which terms according to his own explication none can be attributed to infants of believers 6. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptized Matth 28. 19. is proved from the means of making Disciples to wit by preaching the Gospel to them as appears by Mark 16. 15. For what is Matth. 28. 19. Make Disciples of all Nations is Mark 16. 15. Preach the Gospel to every creature Whence I argue Those Disciples which Christ hath ordinarily appointed to be baptized an such as are made such by preaching of the Gosepl to them Rightly saith Mr. Collings Vindic Vindic pag. 145. How iâ— one made a disciple but by conversion and when is a man converted but when he is brought to believe But infants of believers are not made disciples by preaching of the Gospel as is of it self manifest and acknowledged by the adverse party who make them Disciples by an imaginary Covenant and their parents profession Ergo they are not Disciples appointed by Christ ordinarily to be baptized 7. Those are appointed to be baptized and no other whom the Apostles did baptize for the Apostles practice shews how they understood Christs Commission and rightly saith Mr. Norton respon ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 34. 35. Religio est nobis judicare Apostolos in baptizando observà sse regulam à Christo latam Matth. 28. 16. religion binds us to judge the Apostses to have observed in baptizing the rule made
meaning of the word holy here we are agreed about the sense that it signifieth one so related to Christ as their â—aster the difference is about the application of this term But this is false that I agree with him about the signification and sense of the word Disciple of Christ as it notes a relation to Christ as Teacher yea I utterly deny it notes such a relation as Mr. B. fancies in title without actual learning or owning Christ as Teacher in which sense it is no where taken in Scripture or any Ancient Author I know 3. Saith he However I am certain if we have not the name elsewhere yet we have the description and names of the same signification they are Church members Gods people his servants and therefore Disciples Answ. 1. This doth not at all avoyd his owne charge of prostituted consciences c. in another case he charged these things on me for using the word holy in a different sense from what elsewhere it is used though I brought a term of the same signification Mal. 2. 15 and cogent reason out of the Text for my interpretation and therefore by his own Law to me he is to be charged as he chargeth me for doing the same though it were true he had the description and names of the same signification 2. It is not proved no nor can be proved the terms Churchmembers Gods people Gods servants to be of the same signification with Disciples of Christ 3. There is no so much as one Text in the New Testament which alone is written in Greek by the Holy Pen-men and therefore the fittest if not the onely way to shew the meaning of a New Testament term brought to prove infants under the New Testament to be caled Churchmembers Gods people Gods servants 4. The consequence shall be examined in that which follows Besides I argued from the Text the putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren and v. 5. they said it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses and v. 24. certain which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law Now is any man so sensless as to think they did these things to infants Again the Text. v. 1. 23. calls the Disciples v. 10. brethren saith v. 9. their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word which none but those that are resolved to outface a plain truth would aver to be meant of infants therefore neither the term Disciples v. 10 fiâ—h what is said of the brethren is meant of the Disciples v. 10. To this all the reply I finde in Mr. B. is this pag 252. And your bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not no more than several passages in Deut. 29. applicable onely to the aged will prove little ones were not taken in to be Gods people Answ. It is true the bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not if I had made such an Argument I would give him leave to use his Rhetorick of silly insipid arguings But my arguing is this The same thing which is expressed v. 10. by putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples is expressed v. 1. by teaching the brethren v. 5. by saying to them it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses v 24. by troubling with words subverting their souls saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law and the same persons which are expressed by Disciples v. 10. are termed v. 1. Brethren are said v. 9. to have their hearts purified by faith v. 19. those of the Gentiles that were turned to God v. 23. Brethren of the Gentiles But these things were not done to infants nor infants comprehended under these persons in these places which express the same thing and the same person which is apparent by the narration Peter reprehends the same thing in the same persons v. 10. which is related v. 1 5 23 24. the occasion of his speech was the same fact the drift of his speech is to condemn the same fact the determination of the Council is against the same practice the same persons are in all these places spoken of and this is proved by Mr. Bs. first Argument who brings v. 1 5 24. to prove Circumcision to be the yoke v. 10. which Argument supposeth the same persons and things meant v. 10. which are meant v. 1 5 24. But not one of the things said there is applicable to infants How then can any man imagine that the same act being meant in all the places it should be meant of the act of Circumcision v. 10. and not v. 1 5 24. and the same persons meant they should be infants meant v. 10. and not v. 1 5 24 Is not this to make the same act and the same persons not the same which is a contradiction I know not how men conceive of my intellectuals But I am still possessed of this to be so good proof that I should as soon doubt of other common notions as of this and as soon believe that the Moon is made of green Cheese as believe Mr. B. affirming that Peter meant infants by Disciples Acts 15. 10. I added further if the putting on the yoke had been Circumcision it had been to be done not on their necks but elsewhere the yoke was put not on their flesh but on their consciences their souls are said to be subverted their mindes troubled v. 24. not their flesh pained by the putting on the yoke it was done by words v. 24. not by a knife or such like instrument Again the yoke v. 10. was such as neither the present Jews nor their fathers were able to bear but Circumcision put on infants was tolerable I argued also that Christs doctrine is called his yoke Matth. 11. 29. I alleged the testimonies of Pisc. sch on Acts 15. 10. Grot. Annot. in Acts 15. 10. calling it the Law and Doctrine that the yoke of bondage Gal. 5. 1. is the Doctrine or Covenant of the Law which genders to bondage Gal. 4. 21 24. That Circumcision is not the yoke without subjection of minde or opinion to it which are not verified of infants These things he saith are answered already but where I know not if he mean in his Argument before he may see his Cannon turned against himself I said all the colour Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants disciples is by conceiving the yoke to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin To this he answers I must say it is but one of your fictions Did you over hear me talk of such a thing Cutting that skin is not Circumcision as the word is used for a Sacrament
If God call Infants his Servants though they are uncapable at present of doing him service then we may call them Disciples though at present they are uncapable of learning But God doth so call them therefore we may c. Answ. If God call infants his servants according to the Apostles description of a servant Rom. 6. 16. then I confess infants may be called Christs Disciples but not if onely according to the sense of Lev. 25. 41. Mr. B. goes on Hath he a good wit now or a bad minde that can raise a dust for the darkning of so express and plain a Text and yet still call for Scripture proof I will deal faithfully in telling you Mr. T. his answer to this and that upon deliberation in his Sermon after the Dispute 1. He distinguisheth of Servants of God de â—ure de facto 2. Between Servants actively and passively and saith that here the term Servant is meant passively and not actively that is such as God useth and that they are called Servants here in no other sense than the Heavens and the Earth are Psalm 119. 89 90. They are thy Servants Are they therefore Disciples saith he what ridiculous arguing is this So Mr. T. O what cause have we all to look to the tenderness of our consciences in time before engagement in a sinfull cause hath benummed them and made the Word of God to be of no force to us I know shallow brains are uncapable to discern the weakness of the silliest Answer they go that way as their affection doth byass them their approbation of an Argument or Answer is no credit to it But let any man of a tolerable understanding and conscience not seared but weigh-seriously this Answer and I dare warrant he will think it a bad cause that must be underpropt by such palpable abuse of Scripture Answ. I loath to take notice of such base insinuations far unworthy of a christian brother or an ingenuous scholar but that thereby Mr. B. hath more prevailed to hinder the entertainment of the truth I maintain than by any arguments he hath brought And were it not that the Law of Charity forbids me to put the worst construction on things I see so much as might move me to retort upon himself his insinuations against me as if I had a bad minde and a seared conscience and a bad cause and that I darken so express and plain a Text and so palpably abuse Scripture because of my answer about this Text. I will not deny him to have a good wit nor impute to him a shallow brain I wish his judgment were as good as his fancy that with his quickness of apprehension he had more considerateness in his determinations and especially about the meaning of Scripture if it were so the Church of God might have much more benefit by his laboures than it hath nor would his polemick writings especially have so many crudities in them as there are As for this present business I think that intemperate zeal to the cause he thinks good hath so transported him that he shews much want both of ingenuity of spirit and clearness of understanding which he hath in other writings and that however he doth often pretend love to me yet his gall doth so overflow when ever he speakes of me that he can neither give aright interpretation of what I do nor of what I say But to the matter I had sayd in my Sermon and in my Antidot sect 4. that what is sayd Levit. 25. 41. is nothing to our children it being spoken peculiarly of Hebrew children To this in his reply pag. 182. 248. he tells me 1. The Iewes infants were infants and our dispute you know was of the species Answ. The Jews infants were infants its true and so were the Canaanites infants yet not servants of God as Levit. 25. 41 is meant 2. The dispute was not as it was first mannaged between me and Mr. M. nor as it was by Mr. Bs first argument borught to an issue of the species whether any infants indefinitely or any ones infants whatsoever were to be called Disciples of Christ and to be baptized but whether the infants of believers of whom his meaning is in his first argument however he make his position that some infants are to be baptized 3. whatever his position were yet his wordes in his Epistle to the people of Kederminster were that God saith our children are Gods servants which is palpably false he saying it of the Hebrews children as such and not of ours 2. saith he I have proved that our privileges are greater than theirs and you deny it not and that this was not perculiar to them Answ. if it be granted that our previleges are greater than theirs yet it is but in some respects and therefore there is no good argument if it be confessed God shews more mercy to our children therefore he gives them every such privilege as the Jews had God shews mercy to ministers of the Gospel more than to the Priests of the Jews yet it follows not our children must have such privileges of continuance in office inheritance c. as they had That what is sayd Levit. 25. 41. was peculiar to the Hebrews is so clearly proved that it hath a shew of impudence to deny it 3. saith he it proves that there is nothing in the age to make them uncapable or else the Jews infants would have been uncapable Answ. It proves that there is nothing in the age to make them uncapable of being Gods servants in the sense of Levit. 25. 41. But it proves not that they are capable of being Gods servants ordinarily as the title is used Rom. 6. 16. and is equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. But saith he How have the believing Jews lost this privilege or Proselytes of the Gentiles Answ. 1. This privilege was belonging to the unbelieving Jews while it continued as well as the believing 2. If it be lost as I think it is it is lost by the dissolving the judicial Laws of Moses and the national policy the Jews had But saith he where you talk of servants in this sense and that sense they were so servants as to be visible Church-menbers and that is all that I contest for They were reckoned among Moses Disciples and so are ours to be among Christs Disciples or Christians as Moses Disciples also in some sort were Christs Disciples Answ. The sense in which the Jews children were called Gods servants is not all one with to be visible Church-members nor Moses Diciples as is proved above where the genuine sense is shewed But to the distinctions I used in my Sermon and Antidote I deny not that I used both distinctions and they are usual in schools The former is used by the Author of the New annot on Deut. 22. 24. the later is common in the differencing of active and passive scandal Conversion taken actively and passively Mr. B. himself p. 81. distinguisheth of being
they run into wilde fancies as that they believe in the Church in their Parents in their sureties in their being baptized But Mr. Bs. hold is in his Parenthesis against which I except 1. that his speech of admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples supposeth that a person is first admitted into Christs Church and then to be his Disciple whereas no man is rightly admitted into Christs Church who is not first a Disciple 2. That he saith This Luke 18. 16. is a standing Commandment But this we must take on Mr. Bs. word there 's nothing in the Text or in Mr. Bs. writing to prove it Nor is it likely For if so me thinks the Apostles and the Writers of the New Testament should not have been so negligent as neither to observe this command after this time nor to have recorded any act done by the Apostles according to that command 3. That Chists speech is of the species of infants and not of these individuals onely 1. Is said without proof yea it is more probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as Suffer these little children to come to me and that because as Paedobaptists urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven which is the reason of Christs injunction is meant of those infants 2. Were it granted not to be meant of those individuals onely yet this is all that can be thence proved that if after that time other infants were brought to Christ in that manner to be touched by him they should be suffered It may be granted that there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church But this is enough to prove that there is now no such visible admittance to Christ as those Mark 10. 14 had who were admitted to Christs person to be touched by him and not into his visible Church by baptism 5. Saith Mr. B. If of such be the Kingdom of God then of such is the visible Church but the former is true Therefore c. Answ. The consequence is denied Of infants in the mothers womb as Jacob John Baptist c. is the Kingdom of God and yet the visible Church is not of such But saith Mr. B. Here they have two cavils against the plain sense of the Text 1. By such is meant such for docâ—bleâ—ess and humility To which I answer 1. Then it seems they are so docible and humble that the Kingdom belongs to them For if it belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to others also Answ. Mr. Bs. censure of the Answers I gave as cavils is as the rest of this his Dispute rash and inconsiderate For the very words Mark 10. 15. do directly lead to that sense I give and the words of Christ Matth. 18. 3 4. plainly expound wherein they that enter into the Kingdom of God must be like children But to the matter of his Answer 1. The conclusion is granted nor was it ever denyed by me that of some infants is the Kingdom of God and particularly of those whom Christ blessed but yet not because of their docibleness and humility but because of Christs blessing Nor do I allow Mr. Bs. consequence that if the Kingdom did belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to them also For the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to others because they are such as them in the properties common to them with other children But the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to them as blessed by Christ not in respect of docibleness and humility It may be it will be said that then little children have those properties for which of them may be the Kingdom of God I answer it doth not follow but this onely follows that there is such teachableness and humility in little children in other respects which other men imitating and expressing in spiritual things and so becoming such as they are by analogy and resemblance in that respect belong to the Kingdom of God 2. Saith Mr. B. Doth Christ say To such as them in this or that respect onely and not to them or saith he not in general To such even to such as he took in his arms and blessed He would not have taken up and blessed any for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed he would not have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility and innocency If Christ say of such is the Kingdom I am bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate me to restrain it And therefore must understand it to such both of that age or any other age Who dare think that the word to such is not rather inclusive as to them than exclusive If I love humble poor men and my servants keep them from my house because they are poor and if I chide them for it and say Suffer such to come to me and forbid them not for my delight is in such who would so interpret this speech as to think I would exclude them while I command their admittance And that I meant other humble ones and not these Answ. Doth Mr. B. say To such in general in respect of age onely belongs the Kingdom of God If he do say so as his words seem to import then it follows that to every infant whether of believers or unbelievers elect or reprobate belongs the Kingdom of God If not then he must say as I say if he will speak truth that 1. To those infants belonged the Kingdom in this respect onely as they were blessed by Christ or elect 2. If it be applied to other infants it can be applied to no others but such as are blessed by Christ or elect 3. And for other persons that under the term of such are meant also persons of age like them in humility and teachableness is so manifest from v. 15. Matth. 18. 3. 4. 5. that it is nothing but cavilling in Mr. B. thus to carp at my plain and clear exposition of the words agreeable to the most approved expositors as Beza Annot. ad Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est horum similium ut supra 18. Piscat sch in Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quales scilicet sunt isti pueruli nempe credentes in me demissè de se senâ—ientes confer supra c. 18. 2. seq that I omit others Neither do I nor need I say that Christ took them or blessed the little ones for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed or that he might by like reason with mine have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility And though Mr. Bs. rule may be questioned whether a man be bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate him to restrain it yet I gainsay it not to understand to such
believers not future But However saith he they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught Answ. Who denies it yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons But then saith he a person may be baptized without personal profession Answ. It is granted when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise nor is this contrary to the Rule sith that is to baptise known Disciples who are ordinarily known by their personal profession though in this case Gods extraordinary act supplies that want Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule For Abrahams killing his son was in it self contrary to rule yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done And for the third though it might be conceived Christs minde that the children should be instructed though it be not mentioned Luke 18. 16 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law yet baptising infants being a meer positive rite that hath no reason or warrant but institution is not to be conceived Christs minde without some declaration which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity nor at any time else expressed There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable as that he makes the infants paterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received whereas â— the words Matth. 18. 3â—4 do plainly make them paterns onely of humility and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign as laying on hands c. shall not enter therein For then that Popish Doctrine or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven And in like manner it is gratis dictum without proof sayd of such like infants like them in covenant and Church interest in God is his kingdom there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase and the plain meaning is before expressed That which Mr. Cobbet sayth in answer to the reason of Piscator Why they were not infants because Christ called them I conceive is not an answer For what he sayth that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham Heb. 7. is not right For 1. that which is sayd of Levi is to be understood of Levi not of Abraham for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose to say Abraham payd Tyths in Abraham 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents which was spoken to the children Other things I let pass which oppose not my dispute but others and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter I refer to another place This is sufficient in answer to what he sayth in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16 17. Dr. Homes in his Animad on my Exercit. pag. 57 58. argues thus To whom indefinitely as such Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs to them as such the seal of converance and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the Text here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of Heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven and the blessing of Heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is baptism Answ. Neither is it true That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven and the blessing for it that I finde in Scripture but the Spirit Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such that is as little children For then it should belong to all little children nor to them as children of believing parents for it should belong to all children of believing parents but as they are elect And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called and believe not before as a conveyance may be made to a childe yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it and is fit to make use of it So that the major may be denied if the belonging of the seal be meant in respect of present use or possession And the minor is to be denied if as such be meant as little children or children of believers and the inference on the conclusion is denied the seal belongs to them Ergo baptism Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently Nor hath Mr. Geree in his Vâ—ndiciae Vindiciarum ch 10. brought any thing worth rejoyning in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101 102. It is false which he saith in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgment of certainty but charity nor is a judgment of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism For if so then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptize him Mr. Bailleâ—'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants that therefore baptism a seal of that same kinde when once the Lord had solemnely at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them is but dictates 1. He says baptism is a seal of the same kinde with Christs laying on hands which he saith without proof nor is it true For. 1. Christs laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples John 4. 1 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptized Acts 2. 38. not onely the baptizers but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kinde with laying on of hands then laying on hands is a seal and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism which is counted a point of Popery 2. To
have told him that he makes two contradistinct species of birth that both cannot be incident to one man no more than a man be a brute beast or a brute beast a bird when it is plain that here is not a distribution of a genus into several species but a distribution of a subject according to its several adjuncts of which I give several instances Answ. I sayd in my Postscript that I not orely make birth after the flesh and after the spirit contradistinct but also contrary Contradistinct species may be incident to the same person the same man may bâ— loâ—g and broad just and temperate but not contrary as white and black just and unjust Birth distributed into birth after the flesh and after the spirit must needs be a genus or an equivocal term it cannot be any subject either quod or quo it being neither substance quantity nor quality but either action or passion action as from the mother passion as in the person born Now actions though they are capable of various modifications yet I do not think any Logicians call them subjects or their several modifications adjuncts but the substance whose action or passion it is is the subject both of the action and passion and their degrees and modifications and these are adjuncts of that substance Mr. Bl. adds of me He is pleased to deny that it is a distribution of the subject according to its adjuncts and gives in the thing in dispute for a reason Then the same person he says would be born after the spirit and after the flesh Answ. I give in this reason I confess but I did not think this was in dispute but out of all dispute the Apostle making them two sons born of two mothers v. 22. two several ways v. 23. born to two several estates v. 24 25 30. the one persecuting the other and all these diversities are in the persons which are Types and in their Antitypes and the Apostle thence inferreth that the one are not the other v. 31. whence it follows that birth after the flesh and spirit are not adjuncts of the same subject but contrary attributes of several subjects Mr. Bl. proceeds Presently he confesseth that Isaac was born after the flesh in the two senses I mention And I am sure Mr. T. will not deny that Isaac was born after the Spirit and then either truth is very absurd or else Mr. T. hath quit me from absurdity but then he says It is untrue in the Apostles sense for then he should be the childe of the bond-mayd not by promise a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit To which I answer that my sense is the Apostles sense and Mr. T. his sense far from it For though the Apostle doth indeed allegorize the Text as Arias Montanus renders it quae sunt allegorizata yet the Apostle in the parallel looks at the letter of the history as I have shewen not at the Allegory which Mr. T. had not a face to oppose either he must deny now and then to be Adverbs of time or else he must allow of my interpretation Ishmael did never as a Justitiary prosecute Isaac under the notion of a follower of Evangelical righteousness Answ. I do confess Isaac was born after the Spirit and that he was born after the flesh in the two senses of Mr. Bl. for one born of natural parents Abraham was his natural father and in the sense more common in Scripture for the outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth though I do not find the phrase born after the flesh in this later sense in Scripture not Phil. 3. 4. Rom. 9. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 16. where the term flesh is used and yet I think onely in the first place importing prerogatives no where the phrase born after the flesh in that sense yet not in the Apostles sense in which to be born after the flesh notes birth without consideration of the father as by a mother that was a bond-woman and so no prerogative is intimated in it but a debasement or deminution and so Isaac was not born after the flesh that is not of a bond-woman by an usual way of generation but of the free-woman by Divine virtue according to a promise to her when past childe-bearing in the course of nature And this to be the Apostles sense is proved before and Mr. Bls. sense proved very absurd and his reasons for it answered Yet he adds of me After some concessions in full contradiction to himself I deny not saith he but legal Justitiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house though the Apostle make the parallel onely in the casting out that they might not inherit Apolog. pag. 114. he saith if Mr. Bl. would gather anything hence for himself he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be of the visible Church by virtue of being born after the flesh as their prerogative which is as wide from the Apostles meaning as the East is from the West as far as the East is from the Sun-rising he should have said that is the thing that I have proved and do maintain I laid down by way of Syllogism and have an Apology instead of an answer Mr. T. hath a notable faculty in begging of the question in agitation The Apostles full scope I confess is another thing but I still affirm that he occasionally expresses that from whence this is evidently deduced namely a distinction of births literal not allegorical which Mr. T. never will be able with any reason to deny till it can be proved that then and now look at the Allegory not at the History I can prove from Luke 13. 16. that the Israelitish women are daughters of Abraham though it is plain that another thing there was Christs main intention Answ. Mr. Bl. continues to write at random There 's no shew of contradiction much less a full contradiction in my words to my self This may be true Justitiaries may be in the visible Church and this also To be born after the flesh or to be a Justitiary doth not import a prerogative giving title to be of the visible Church my speech was right and needs not to be mended by any of Mr. Bls. flâ—â—ts He hath a full answer to his Syllogism before and so he had before in the Apology the strength of his arguing being thus expressed here The consequence is plain birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church interest which is denied to be proved from Galat. 4. 26. and was denied before And though being an answerer I need not prove and therefore begging the question is charged on me frivolously by Mr. Bl. For he only begs the question who takes for granted that which he should prove which is Mr. Bls. fault who useth to dâ—ctate when he should prove yet did I prove that the Apostles scope is not onely another thing than the asserting of a prerogative of visible Church-membership by being born after
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