referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
after and spirit before as Matth. 3. 11. spirit is first and fire after and after the usual manner of speaking it should run thus except a man be born of the spirit and water if it were to be expounded of the spirit which is as water Dr. Homes animadv on my Exercit pag. 30. allegeth Bullinger saying Omnes penè de baptismo Ioh. 3. 5. interpretantur to which he adjoyns Bullingers and his own consent For these reasons I am much inclined to expound it of the Element of Water Yet 2. am very apt to conceive that forasmuch as Mr. Selden de jurenat Gent. juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 4. tels us that when the Iews did initiate Proselytes by baptizing them with water they called it Regenerating and that Christ when he taunts Nicodemus with dulness in being a Master in Israel and yet not knowing of Regeneration but by imagining a natural New-birth when Regeneration was frequent in baptizing Proselytes among the Iews insomuch that by it they taught a person lost his natural relations of kinred as he shews lib. 5. c. 18. and hath these words in the place above cited tamet si de eâ quae spiritu fit non solùm aquâ loqueretur Christus our Saviour meant baptism of water not according to his Apostles practice but the Iews and that the sense is this Except a man be born of water and of the spirit that is Except a man be not onely born again by water as ye Pharisees regenerate when ye make Proselytes but also by the spirit as I do beget again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God although he may enter into the Common-wealth or policy of Israel which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration but onely of Christs spiritual regeneration and the insufficiency of the other by it self which is so much the more probable because I finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is and for but Motth 11. 19. 12. 39. Acts 10. 28. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to not onely but also yet because I finde not a place every way parallel I onely propound it to be examined But 3. it being granted that it is meant of Christs water-baptism yet Papists themselves make not such a necessity of it as is without limitation and exception and therefore they put in some one some another restriction which Chamier in the place alleged reduceth to four 1. Unless the person be baptized either with the baptism of water or some other thing instead of it as the baptism of bloud and spirit 2. If they may be baptized and they despise it 3. If they be not baptized with that Regeneration which is by water though it may be otherwise also 4. If they be neither baptized in deed nor desire Why may not then this limitation be added Except a man be born again of water that is except such a person of whom baptism is required according to my institution be born of water when he may have it and it s cleared to him to be his duty he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And indeed this and such like speeches Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 18 â—6 c. that require faith as well as baptism are to be understood of persons to whom the Gospel is preached and do or may hear it and speak not of infants whom we finde not that God enters into the Kingdom of Heaven any other way than by his invisible election and operation of his Spirit And it is observable that whereas Iohn 3. 5. our Saviour joyns water and spirit as means of Regeneration yet v. 6. he names onely the spirit omitting water whence may be gathered that water is not of such universal unrestrained necessity that in no case a person is not born again without it nor admissible into the Kingdom of God yet such as is necessary ordinarily to those to whom the Gospel is preached and their duty made known Whence in answer to the Doctors argument I say that his speeches are to be thus limited at least none can enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily without baptism to wit of those to whom the Gospel is preached their duty made known and Baptism may be had and to his later Argument I answer by denying that children are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven by denying them Baptism sith those unbaptized persons onely are excluded who are appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel is preached the duty of Baptism made known and they may have it administred to them which cannot be said of infants Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in his Book intituled A Precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament having premised some thing about the Text Iohn 3. 5. pag. 18 19 20 21 22. about the necessity of baptism of water and the efficacy of it in which many things are meerly dictated and very slightly handled he would infer pag. 23 c. a Precept for infant-baptism from Iohn 3. 5. because infants are guilty of original sin where the disease is there is need of the remedy when Christ doth press a necessity of washing both by water and the spirit he doth not this so immediately in reference to actual sin as in reference to birth-sin and to the natural pollution in which infants are born The same is the plea of Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants Advocate c. 13. Answ. That either baptism of water or Circumcision are made the remedy of original sin is more than I finde in Scripture though it go as currant among many of former and later times It is true our Lord Christ saith Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. and he assigns this as a reason thereof v. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh but that either thereby he intended to make baptism as the remedy of sin or of original sin rather than actual is more than appears For though our Lord Christ v. 5. make regeneration to be by Water and Spirit yet I conceive regeneration is by the Spirit onely as the cause by baptism of water onely as the sign whereby the person baptized testifies that he is born again by the Spirit Now a remedy is a cause and not a sign onely no man calls that which is onely a sign of cure a remedy but that which doth operate for healing That baptism of water is not the cause of regeneration appears 1. Because v. 6. our Saviour giving the reason of the necessity of regeneration and the effect of regeneration leaves ouâ— water and mentions onely the Spirit 2. Because the person baptized is supposed to be born again to be a repenting and believing person afore he is baptized But if baptism were the cause it should be before regeneration for the cause is before the effect and so men should be
of newness of life and hope of resurrection Becman Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum ipsius exemplo veluti enâ—care peccatum ne nobis dominetur But this could not infants do therfore no insants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and have been all made drink into one Spirit or as some copies have it have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lords Supper are meant is manifest the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he had done in the Lords Supper and Eph. 4. 4 5. he doth from baptism And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain that it is Spirit-baptism not water-baptism For it is indeed both Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause and water-baptism together as the outward element Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism 1. All that were baptized into the body were baptized by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof c. page 342. that is together with the word as Ephes. 5. 26 is declared by preaching of which the Spirit was given Gal. 3 2. and this was presumed of all as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place That it was all that were thus baptized into the body But I subsume infants were not thus baptized Ergo no infants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 2. All that were thus baptized were also made to drink or did drink themselves or were drencht by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lords Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. But infants did not thus drink Ergo infants were not then baptized 3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ or the Church were thus baptized and made to drink But infants were not thus baptized and made to drink for if so they received the Lords Supper therefore were not then visible Church members and consequently ought not to be so counted now Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ because they had put on Christ must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ and then the Apostles speech is this As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ and consequently so many as were baptized were believers and therefore no infants were baptized for want of faith Ephes. 4. 4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one faith one baptism Whence I argue 1. They that have one baptism have also one faith But infants had not one faith Ergo they had not one baptism and consequently are not to have it now 2. One faith is placed before one baptism therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles daies and consequently infants were not baptized 3. They that were counted of one body had one faith But infants had not one faith therefore they were not counted of one body that is Church-members Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so hath it one common baptism Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it cleansing it with the washing of water by the word whence Mr. B Plain Script proof p. 342. inferres the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water Now I argue 1. They who were washed with water were cleansed with the washing of water by the word which word is the word preached as where mention is made of baptism there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it and the word doth no where signifie the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christs comming and invitation to repentance but altogether as it was preached as may be seen in Peters speech Acts 10. 36 37 38 c. But infants were not cleansed by the word therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water 2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word But so were not infants therefore they were not parts of the Church and consequently are not now Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead Whence I argue They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith and consequently were believers But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism that is they were not baptized and by consequence ought not to be Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism as by Mr. B. pag. 342 so by many others But if the washing there be meant of baptism it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost therfore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown Heb. 6. 1 2. Where the foundation is mentioned this order is observed first repentance then faith then baptism then laying on of hands then resurrection of the dead and lastly eternal judgement now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching and according to the event of things as he seems to have done then repentance and faith went before baptism and so no infants baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanyed with the answer of a good conscience towards God This saith Beza in his annot on that text alludes to the Custome of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised which if right as is probable then it is manifest that the baptized did answer at baptism which infants could not and therefore were not baptized SECT VI. Mr. Blakes exception against the Major that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary is refelled AGainst these arguments chiefly the two first brought to prove that infants are not to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles besides what is alleged and refuted already many things are alleged Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection
by Christ Matth. 28. 19. But they baptized no other than repenting and believing Disciples of Christ no infants Ergo. To say that in Christs and the Apostles daies there were no infants which they might baptize is neither true nor consistent with their own allegations of Mat. 19. 13 14. Acts 2. 39. 16. 15. To say that at first gathering the Church they were not to do it but after is to make them faulty in not observing the commission of Christ as they expound it that even in the first planting of the Church they were to baptize disciples immediately and remotely such as Mr. Baxter speaks and to hold that the Apostles practice is not our pattern and that the first Church was not best ordered though it was indeed the purest reformed Church and therefore the solemn covenant ties us to endeavour the establishing the worship of God according to it To say infants were baptized by them but not recorded is without proof or any likelyhood of truth and tends to derogate from the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures Out of all which I conclude that infants even of believers are not disciples appointed Matth. 28. 19. ordinarily to be baptized SECT XI Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue the first chapter to prove infants Disciples are shewed to be insufficient AGainst this Mr. John Cotton in his Dialogue intituled The Grounds and Ends of Baptism c. chapter 1. disputes thus That all the children of the faithful or which is all one all the children of the Church for the Church is a congregation of the faithfull that they are all of them disciples may appear by the testimony of the Prophet Esay who speaking of the times of the Church in the New Testament All thy children saith he shall be taught of God Esa. 54. 13. and if they be taught of God then are they disciples for that is the meaning of the word disciples Disciples are taught or learnt of God Answ. 1. It is supposed but not proved that the tossed v. 11. is meant of the Church of the N. T. and not of the people of the Jews after the Captivity 2. The phrase of children of the Church is not a Scripture-phrase nor that I know is the Church made a mother though Jerusalem which is above be called the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. which seems to be meant of the Evangelical Covenant 3. It is supposed that to be children of the Church and to be children of the faithful are one yet Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. makes them only the Church seed who are children of persons inchurched otherwise though the parents be faithful yet they are not the Church seed Besides to be children of the Church is not all one with to be natural children of believers For the Church doth not beget or bring forth by natural seed but by spiritual to wit the word of God 1 Peter 1. 23. and children are begotten in the womb of the Church by the Spirit and therefore said to be born after the Spirit Gal. 4. 29. by the promise or covenant of the free woman v. 30. And indeed the New Annotations on Isaiah 54. 13. hath thus And thy Children shall be taught of the Lord By the outward Ministery of the word and inward co-operation of the Spirit Jerem. 31. 34. John 6. 45. 2 Cor. 13. 3. 1 Cor. 2. 10. 1 John 2. 20 27. Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 2. s. 6. Denique non frustrà Deus apud Iesaiam hâ◠not â disoernit filios Ecclesiae ab extraneis quod omnes erudiet verbo ut sint ab ipso edocti 4. It is supposed that the Church whose children those are is the visible church as such Whereas 1. in Scripture no Church is called the Mother but Hierusalem above Gal. 4. 26. which is the mother of us all and that is either the Evangelical covenant or the invisible Church The Churches children are Christs seed and they are those whom his Father hath given him Heb. 2. 13. made disciples by his Word and Spirit Our Lord Christ where he cites this passage of the Prophet John 6. 45. applies it to those that are drawn of the Father and whom he will raise up at the last day ver 44. who are only the children of the invisible Church Diodati annot on John 6. 45. all not all and every particular person as it appears by ver 44. 65 but all the elect and children of God Noâ— is Mr. C 〈…〉 shift rather than answer of any moment when he saith For look what promises are made to the invisible Church they are for their sakes offered to all the members of the visible Churches whereof the lively members are the chief For 1. He doth alter the term in the objection which was made not offered wherein both he and Mr. George Philips before him deal not rightly so speaking as that it may be taken that to be in covenant to have the covenant made is all one with to have it offered Whereas it is offered not only to the children of the visible Church but to many professed unbelievers as Acts 13. 46. Now this answering is a way to delude Readers when the objection is that the promise is made only to the children of the invisible Church to answer the promises are also offered to the members of the visible and when it is expected that it should be proved the promise is made to conclude that it is offered 2. Mr. Cotton dare not say that promise to be made to any but those that are children of the invisible Church and therefore it can be meant of no other and so no other taught of the Lord and disciples which will not reach to the natural children of visible in churched believers 3. Thy children is not all one with thy infants Mr. Cotton denies not that the meaning in part may be of men of years and if so no necessity to understand it of infants and then his argument falls which is to prove infants to be disciples 4. Besides our Lord Christ where he cites John 6. 45. the prophet leaves out the word children and applies the teaching of God onely to true believers Omnes saith Grotius quibus sermo Evangelii annuntiatur 5. Were it granted Mr. Cotton that all believers infants were taught of God by secret indiscernable teaching yet this being such cannot be applyed to the disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. who are disciples by preaching the Gospel and known to be such by their profession But Mr. Cotton tells us The infants or children of the faithful are not to be excluded from the number of the children of the Church For the same Prophet speaking of the same Church fetcheth in infants among the blessed ones of the Church and blessed with such spiritual light and life from Christ as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church Esa. 65. 20. There shall be no more saith he thenâ—â— forth an infant of daies nor an
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
deductions after and the constant exposition of interpreters The Apostles Doctrine before is to disswade the Galatian Christians from affecting to be under the Law v. 21. as the false teachers endeavoured to perswade them And to that end he teacheth them the allegory of Hagar and Sarah and their children Hagar and Sarah represent two Covenants the one of the Law the other of Righteousness by Faith and the Children represent the one the Justiciaries that seek Righteousness by the Works of the Law and are tenacious of that Covenant the other bellevers in Christ who seek Righteousness by Faith in him and stick to the new Covenant of Grace in which is promised the Just shall live by Faith The former Covenant is a Covenant of Bondage and the Children thereof are in bondage with their Mother that is they are not to inherit the promise of Righteousness but the later Covenant is free and her Children are free-born heirs of Righteousness And though the former Covenant had many Children while the Jewish Church stood the greatest part resting in the Law and expecting their righteousness in observing it yet the new Covenant that was as barren having none or very few that were born of it there being but few that looked for redemption by the Messiah or the consolation of Israel but followed the Pharises Doctrine of conceiving themselves righteous by keeping the Law now being made known to all Nations by preaching the Gospel hath many more children than the old innumerable believers of the Gentiles as well as the Jews embraciâ—g the Doctrine of the Gospel concerning righteousness by faith and of this sort are we sayth the Apostle v. 28. But it happens to us as of old as Ishmael persecuted Isaac so now the carnal Jews who are Justiciaties persecute us who are believers And then follow deductions one that it is Gods sentence to reject Justiciaries as not heirs of righteousness v. 30. Another the assâ—rting the estate of believers to be a state of freedom v. 31. and hereupon exhorts cap. 5. 1. that they should stâ—nd fast in their liberty wherein Christ hath made them free and not be again intangled with the yoke of bondage to wit the Law and legal Covenant And that the constant exposition of Interpreters is for the sense according to the supplement made by me and not according to Mr. Bls. conceit may appear by alleging some of their words Hieronym Comment in Epist. ad Galat. lib. 2. cap. 4. thus paraphraseth the words Sicut ergo tum major frater Ishmael lactentem adhuc parvulum persequebatur Isaac sibi circumcisionis praerogativam sibi primogenita vendiâ—ans ita nunc secundum carnem Israel adversus minorem fratrem de gentibus populum Christianum sustollitur inflâ—tur erigâ—tur Consideremus insaniam Judaeorum qui Dominum interfecere Prophetas Apostolos persecuâ—i sunt adversantur voluntatâ— Dei videbimus multo majores persecutiones quas nos etiam historiae docent à Judaeis in Christianos quà m à genâ—â—bus concitatas Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gorran It a nunc illi scilicet qui secundum carnem vivunt ut Judaei haeretici per sequuntur eos qui secundum spiritum scilicet Christianos omnes bonos Perkins com upon Galat. 4. 29. These words are an answer to an objection on this manner We are hated of the Jews and therefore we are not the children of promise The answer is two fold one in this verse thus No marvel this is the old fashion it was thus in Abrahams family For Ishmael born after the â—lesh persecuted Isaac born after the Spirit and so it is at this day Pareus Comment in Gen. 21. 12 Illusio Ismaelis adversus fraâ—rem significat filios carnis persecutionem intentâ—re filiis promissionâ—â— Pâ—scator schol in locum Ita nunc carnalis Israel spiritua em persequitur Grot. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic nunc Judaei illis ritibus addicti quos vultis imitari maximo odio prosequuntur Christianos Diodati Annot. ad Gal. 4. 29. But as this singular privilege hath a condition joyned unto it like unto that which happened unto Isaac who was scorned by Ishmael Gen. 21. 9. that is to say that all Christians are likewise persecuted by the Jews Diâ—son Cum enim in Abrahami familâ—a is qui naturae vi ordinariâ tantum genitus est persequutus est eum qui divinitus spirituali ratione est genitus Quid mirum si idem nunc usu veniat nobis Trapp Com. on the place Even so it is now And so also it is now may we say at this day For what do Papists persecute us for else but because we reject their justification by works which being determined I infer that Mr. Bls. arguing includes many absurdities 1. That when it is sayd Even so it is now and the term they that are born after the flesh is to be supplied he by being born after the flesh means Birth by natural genoration of infants born of Christian Parents in which are many gross absurdities 1. That he understands this sayd of infants which must then be sayd to persecute 2. That he takes being born after the flesh in the later part to note natural birth but that is clean besides the Apostles meaning who considers persons born after the flesh not as born by humane members and seed but as born by a fleshly covenant Otherwise it should import no Allegory contrary to the Apostles speech v. 24. which tels us these things are an Allegory that is do speak or declare some other thing than the narration according to the Grammar-sense imports and that is to be born according to the fleshly covenant that is to imbrace the Doctrine of that covenant 3. That to be born after the flesh should import birth of Abraham as a believer and so natural generation of each childe of a believer in that respect but then to be born after the flesh would be common to Isaac with Ishmael to him that is born after the spirit of the free woman by promise with him that is born after the flesh of the bond woman for to be born of Abraham or a believer agrees also to Isaac to him that is born after the spirit of the free woman by promise whereas to be born after the flesh is taken in a sense from which Isaac and we that is Paul and other Christian believers are excluded For he infers v. 31. Therefore brethren we are not the children of the bond woman which is all one with this We are noâ— born after the flesh as it is expressed v. 23. whence it is apparent that being born after the flesh doth onely import the birth of the bond woman generation by Abraham being not considered in this thing 4. Mr. Bl. doth quite pervert the Apostles intent in taking to be born after the flesh to import an honour and that it implies two things 1. A birth of nature a
childe by lineal descent of such a father 2. Outward Prerogatives that accompany such a birth as his words are Vindic. Foed cap. 40. whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement takes it in the worser part not as importing a descent from the father but from the mother and that mother a bond woman and therefore the children servants or bond slaves by reason of their being born after the flesh I will use the words of Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus Die Dominica April 26. 1620. sect 18. Contrà verò Ismael etsi patre libero attamen matre servanatus est porro partus ventrem sequitur nascendi ergo conditione servus fuit tales scilicet sunt qui Deo cultum exhibent servilem fusticiarii where he explains the Apostles words Gal. 4. Against this Mr. Bl. excepts Vindic. Foed cap. 40. 1. That I make the Apostles parallel to look at the Allegory and not at the History when the Text makes it plain that the Apostle looks at the History then and now are both Adverbs of time and relate to Ishmaels jears in person not to the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace Here he is wholly silent and answers in his Apology nothing at all Answ. I conceived in answering the second I had answered this exception But I now answer particularly I conceived he meant by the history those words v. 22. 23. and the forepart of the 29. v. As then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit And by the parallel he meant the later part of the 29. v. And the allegory to be that which answers to Ishmael to wit to seek righteousness by the Law and to Isaac to wit to seek righteousness by faith which may be seen in Bezas and Piscators Diagrams where Beza and Piscator make Ishmael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer or to be in the same rank as the type with the Justitiaries that seek righteousness by the Law which answers â—o Hagar whose gneration is after the flesh that is justification is by works and are cast out of the family of God excluded from the inheritance of life as Ishmael from Abrahams and Isaac to answer to believers by virtue of the Covenant of the Gospel answering to Sara whose birth is after the Spirit that is whose justification is by faith and so are in Abrahams house and heirs of eternal life Now it is true I do make the history to be in the forepart of the 29 v. and the mystery or allegory in the later not but that I acknowledg there is a history in both parts of the verse as the Adverbs then and now shew But it is not the same history in the later part of the verse which is in the former For then there should be nothing allegorized yea there would be a meer tautology if as Mr. Bâ— speaks then and now both adverbs of time relate to Ishmaâ—s jeers in person then the speech of the Apostle is inept or rather false For then it should be As Ishmael in person then jeered Isaac so now Ishmael in person jeers Isaac which is I say still a gross absurdity But the later part contains another history of what was done in the Apostles time where in the terms born after the flesh and after the spirit are allgorized and applied to other sorts of persons and the term now relates the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace as hath been fully proved before against Mr. Blake 2. ' â—M Bl. excepted that I shut out the literal sense both from the history and parallel and bring in an allegorical sense in both when the contrary is evident in the Text for though Ishmael be a Type of one under the covenant of works yet that Ishmael himself was a Justiciary or that he sought righteousness that way and persecuted Isaac under any such notion as a man for Gospel-righteousness Scripture hath no word or so much as any colour ' â— Answ. This exception is the same in effect with the former and in answering this the former was answered in my Postscript sect 5. and now this is answered by answering the former yet I finde a necessity to add something by reason of Mr. Bls. unreasonable importunity I take notice that Ishmael is confessed to be a type of one under the covenant of works and whether he were himself a Justiciary is not material though sure there is some colour for it But this seems to be Mr. Bls. minde that in the parallel Gal. 4. 29. there 's no allegorical sense because Ishmael himself was not a Justitiary which reason rests on this conceit that neither in the forepart nor the later part of v. 29. by he that was born after the flesh is meant any other than Ishmael himself or in person which how it makes the Apostles speech tautological or false is shewed before Mr. Bl. goes on To this he answers he shuts not out the literal sense from the History but from the parallel and that is so far from being contrary to the Text that it is expresly sayd These things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Allegory I desire the Reader to take notice what kinde of interpretation Mr. T. will put on this Text and who will have him pass for an eminent Scripture interpreter when Mr. B. is a man in his high censure defective in it Then and now are both Adverbs of time and we must have a literal then and a mystical now one of them to answer the History and the other the Allegory if my interpretation be thus gross I desire the Reader to disclaim it either the Hâ—story must be wholly looked at in the parallel or else the Allegory there is that harmony between the Apostles then and now that will not admit such divorce and separation Answ. What I sayd of Mr. Bs. interpretations of Scripture in my Praecursor sect 3. appears by this writing to be right and will appear more hereafter Did he measure himself suâ— modulo ac pedâ— he would be more cautelous than he is in expounding Scripture and if he did take warning by my words the Church of God would have cause to thank me for them however he or Mr. Bl. take them I am sorry that the Reader and my self are troubled about such stâ—rtings rather than arguings which Mr. Bl. here and elsewhere useth which sure do ill become him who should at the years he is now of rather weigh things than lightly pass ever them with satyrical quips instead of arguments He may take notice that I make no mystical Now Gal. 4. 29. but in both parts the Adverbs of time are literal and yet the terms he that is born after the flesh and he that is born after the spirit are without any absuâ—dity meant allegorically as I have both sayd and demonstrated 3. Sayth Mr. Bl. I
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