good doctrine before Christ which these false Apostles taught viz. that except they were circumcised and kept the Law they could not be saved I meaâ— as to the Jews it was true Now the Doctrine of those that mis-taught the Galatians was justification by the Law as appears by the Apostles opposition Gal. 2. 16 21. 3. 5. 11 18 21. 4. 21. 5. 4. and this was the same with the Doctrine of the false Teachers as appears from Acts 15. 1 9 10 11. and Mr. B. confesseth it to be the same But that Doctrine the Apostle denies to have been true and good before Christ to the Jews Gal. 3. 4. and elsewhere and therefore Mr. B. contradicts the Apostle and his speech overthrows the Gospel and avows keeping of the Law necessary to justification and salvation to have been true and good Doctrine to the Jews afore Christ. 3. He is not wilfull but considerate that by the yoke of bondage Gal. 5. 1. understands not Circumcision as acted on infants that is the bare passive reception of Circumcision of which onely infants are capable no nor perhaps for that is disputed all willing receiving of Circumcision as the Habassiâ—e Christians do but the willing subjecting to Circumcision according to the command of Moses and the Doctrine of the Teachers that urged it as necessary for justification and salvation For herein 1. they have many of the best sort of Protestant Writers on their side 2. They have these Reasons for them 1. Because the exhortation Gal. 5 1. is inferred from his determination in the precedent Chapter from v 21 to the end to wit that the Covenant of the Law did beget to bondage and that they were children of the free woman and therefore the yoke of bondage is not simply Circumcision as acted but as Mr. Dicson expresseth it the yoke of the Covenant of Works and legal Ceremonies 2. Because if ye be circumcised v. 2. is expounded rightly if ye be willingly circumcised upon the opinion and according to the Doctrine of the false Teachers to seek justification thereby as the reasons of the Apostle v. 3. 4 do evidently shew 3. Otherwise Timothy might be said to be entanged with the yoke of bondage when he was circumcised Acts 16. 3. which being so this Argument as all the rest of Mr. Bs. Arguments is against him For if the false Teachers were the same and the yoke the same Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1. and the yoke Gal. 5. 1. be not Circumcision as acted on infants but the Covenant of Works and Circumcision as taught and yielded to by the circumcised under the notion of necessity for justification and obligation thereby to keep the whole Law then the yoke was not that which is put on infants nor any infants meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. SECT XIII The Arguments are vindicated which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. BUt Mr. B. proceeds Well but Mr. T. hath one argument for his conceit and but one that I have heard and that is like the conceit it self If saith he putting on the yoke be onely by teaching then the yoke it self is onely the Doctrine and consequently it was to be put on none but those that could be taught Answ. 1. I deny both the Consequences and he will never prove them For 1. by putting he confesseth is meant an endeavour to put therefore it must be more than bare Doctrine And if by Doctrine they perswade the People of the necessity of practice in so doing they put on them both the mis-belief and the practice Answ. Mr. B. it seems either did not reade or not heed or forgot what was in Examen pag. 135. when he saith he had heard but of one Argument for my conceit though it be his meer ignorance that makes him call it my conceit as if it were my peculiar conceit whereas his own conceit is scarce any thing older than himself and mine agreeable to the Exposition of the best and elder Interpreters And however when Mr. B. wrote this he might know of no more Arguments against his conceit yet there are more iâ— my Antidote sect 6. to which with this here I shall review his Answers My Argument in form is this They onely are meant by Disciples Acts 15 10. who were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted that is of that which they would have done to them But no infants were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted that is of that which they would have done to them Ergo. The major is plain to common understanding according to all Rules of Logick and Grammar So we argue they must be meant by all men John 12. 32. when Christ saith I will draw all men to me who were the subjects recipient of the act of drawing Every particular man is not the subject of Christs drawing therefore all men doth not note every particular man Innumerable such Arguments are among Writers Ecclesiastical and Civil nor is there any thing more plain to common understanding The minor is proved thus the onely act of the false Teachers by which the yoke was to be put on Disciples was teaching or that which they would have done to them was onely teaching But of this act no infant was the passive subject Ergo. The former is confessed by himself in calling it perswading and if it were not the Text proves it v. 1. 5 24 The minor is manifest they were neither capable of it nor were the false Teachers so sensless as to endeavour it But let 's view Mr. Bs. Answer He denies this consequence if the putting on the yoke be onely by teaching then the yoke it self is onely the Doctrine But this is not my consequence but this if their act of putting on the yoke were onely Teaching then the terminus at least immediate must be Doctrine in respect of the agent and in respect of the patient learning as if the act of the Sun be Teaching the immediate terminus is heat although other effects follow as dryness or the like so if the false Teachers did put the yoke on the Disciples by Teaching they did put Doctrine on them and if they received it they learned that Doctrine although other effects followed as disquietnes of minde c. which may be comprehended under the metaphor of a yoke By Teaching parents an infant is not cut or cicumcised no not though the parents receive the Doctrine he may have no childe to circumcise or no strength or the like no though it come to pass that the childe be circumcised yet this is not done by the false Teacher but by the parent If then their act was onely teaching then the product result or terminus must be Doctrine though there were other consequents to follow But Mr. B. denies also this consequence that if the yoke
a Christian compleat or onely an half Christian what he means by and are no worse and how such a submission as for ought I can perceive may stand with grosse ignorance of Christ and at some times as in Constantines and Theodosius his times was in Pagans afore the Inquisition in Spain in many Jews and Saracens and is at this day in Spain yea and England in many that know nothing of Christianity nor have any savour of the faith of Christ can make a discipled nation and entitle to baptism not shewing any Scripture for what he saith but Abrahams circumcising Gen. 17. 12 17. which how impertinent it is to this point of baptism is and shall be more fully shewed hereafter But I am necessitated yet to say something more to my teasing and eager Antagonist Mr. Blake who speaks thus Vindic. foed pag. 194. Mr. T. in his Apology sect 14. pag. 143. would fain fasten another interpretation on these words and make the Commission not to sound according to the Letter of the words nor yet according to the successe by grace attained but to his liking and therefore is put to it to change the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then all nations must either be put by apposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or with the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so instead of disciple all nations it will be make disciples in all nations This he thinks is very tolerable because to disciple and to make disciples is all one But though they may be one in themselves yet it makes a main difference in the phrase and with the additions of his preposition inverts the whole meaning of the words as to the thing in controversie which is such a violence offered to the Text that is not to be endured in him that is about to draw a Logical argument for his advantage against his adversary Answ What I do in expounding Christs words is not onely tolerable but necessary to be done to cleer the meaning of them I do no more than Beza the New Annot. and others Mr. Blake me thinks allowes my exposition in these words a little before The Apostles were to make disciples to bring men into Covenant with God and being discipled to baptize them sealing them as Gods in Covenant So John 4. 1 2. when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than Iohn though Iesus baptized not but his disciples Here John made disciples baptized them being made the disciples of Jesus made disciples and baptized them being made an outward work then to make profession of the faith is sufficient to make one a disciple and to bring him into the verge of the Covenant In which he plainly asserts that Christ appointed and the Apostles practised the making disciples by an outward work to make profession of faith and baptized them so made Now if this be the meaning of Mr. Blake I see not wherein there needs be difference between us For whether we read make disciples all nations or make disciples of or in all nations and this making disciples by an outward work and profession of faith upon that outward work are that which makes one a disciple and these are to be baptized that are thus made disciples I shall not stick to yield that Christ appointed and the Apostles practised by the outward work of preaching to make disciples by the outward work of profession of faith the whole of all nations and baptized them wholly being made disciples by profession of faith And I mean this as Pareus on Mat. 28. 19. Tertium mandatum est de baptizandis omnibus gentibus hoc est sacramento baptismi initiandis consecrandis omnibus iis qui Christo nomen darent And herein I make the Commission to sound according to the letter and according to the success by grace attained without the least interverting the whole meaning of the words without any violence offered to the text Nor do I expect any thing in this matter to be indured in me but what I find agreeable to speeches of Beâ—â—â— Pareus the New Annot. and M. Blake himself Yea but the text is to be expounded so as to comprehend every age of men and the term all nations is to comprehend the whole of every nation Answ. It is clear by comparing Mat. 28. 19. with Mark 16. 15. that make disciples all nations answers to preach the Gospel to every creature which later term is in shew more comprehensive then make disciples all nations But I suppose Mr. Bl. will not be so absurd as to conceive that any other than of humane kind are meant thereby nor that any other of them are meant thereby than those that were capable of hearing and understanding it me thinks he should not conceive Christ bid them preach the Gospel to every deaf man every natural fool or mad man that have at no time use of reason or men that wilfully would not hear yea methinks Mr. Bl. should yield further that when Christ bids them preach the Gospel to every man that is fit to hear he did not intend to charge them that they must preach the Gosspel so as that every intelligent person of mankind in the world must hear it from their mouth For then it had bin their sin being a breach of Christs coÌ„mand if every person of natural understanding whether of Jews or Gentiles did not hear the Gospel from them which must have tied them either to sin or else to search out every Countrey Continent oâ— Island be it never so small every house in every City village wilderness and to preach Christ to them wherever they were which had been according to the course of ordinary humane abilities altogether impossible for them to do I conceive Mr. Bl. will yield that in what sense it is meant Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven that is it was preached to all sorts of persons that were hearers without difference of Jews or Gentiles in the same sense Christ bids them preach the Gospel to every creature make disciples all nations being the same command as the comparing the texts shews If every creature be not meant of every creature universally and distributively but of any sort or number of men indefinitely to whom they might and it was fit to preach in like manner in the same command thus expressed disciple all nations by all nations are not meant omnes gentes totaliter totae all nations whole and wholly but any persons indifferently in any nation whom they might and were fit to be made disciples by preaching and to baptize them that were professing disciples of Christ so made which is the only sense that the success by grace attained to makes good Neither did the Apostles in the event preach the Gospel to every humane person capable of hearing and understanding they came not to every Village Iâ—le civil or barbarous
sure not to every house yea sometimes they were restrained as Paul from preaching in Asia Bithynia Acts 16. 6 7. nor was there ever by the Apostles or any other the Gospel preached so successfully as that there was ever one whole nation I mean totaliter tota comprehending every individual humane person of that nation discipled thereby so as that every one of the nation not one excepted did upon hearing the Gospel freely or of their own accord soberly or in their right wits seriously or not in jest understandingly or knowing what they spake become disciples of Jesus confessing him to be the Christ the Son of the living God But Mr. Blake goes on Vindic. foederis pag. 195. And as it is against the letter of the text so it is plainly against our Saviours scope and end in giving this Commission Mr. T. Examen page 130. saith This enlargement unto all nations in this place was in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10. 5. now in that nation to which there they were limited the whole of the nation was in covenant all the Land was the Land of Immanuel Isa. 8. 8. And consequently so it was to be in other nations by vertue of this happy inlargement or else the opposition is utterly taken away the meaning of the words clouded and the Apostles at a losse for understanding of them for having spent their pains before in a nation all disciples and now having a commission for the discipling of all nations how shall they understand the words unlesse the whole of the nation where they come are to be discipled Answ. The nation in which the Apostles according to the commission Mat. 10. 5. 6. before spent their pains were the people of Israel and to say that nation were all disciples understanding it of disciples of Christ and of every person of that nation is to say the snow is black For the contrary is manifest by expresse Scripture John 1. 11. 7. 5 48. 9. 28 29. 10. 20. 12. 37 38. But saith he The whole of the nation was in Covenant I grant that the whole of the nation were in the Covenants at Horeb Exodus 19. and in the plains of Moab by Moses his edicts from God Deu. 29. But what is this to prove that the Apostles spent their pains in a nation all disciples every person or persons even the infants of that nation were disciples of Christ. Were all of the Jewish nation when the Apostles preached to them disciples of Christ because in Moses his time many hundreds of years before all were engaged in the covenants at Horeb and the plains of Moab by Moses authority It is but a new non-sense gibberish to make these terms synonimous to be disciples of Christ and to be in covenant according to the manner of the Jewes being in covenant And the reason of Mr. Blake is as frivolous All the Land was the Land of Immanuel Isaiah 8. 8. therefore The whole of the nation were in covenant that nation were all disciples of Christ. For first it is plain that the Land of Immanuel there is not the people but the ground or earth they inhabited because it is that The breadth of which the King of Assyria did fill with his wings that is his forces and did pass through 2. How doth Mr. Blake prove that it was called The Land of Immanuel because the whole of the nation was in Covenant It might be called Immanuels land when the Assyrians Chaldaeans and other strangers inhabited it Israel being expelled because of Gods title to it and the people might and shall be in covenant when they shall not be in the Land 3. But it is in my apprehension a meer whimzy to infer the whole of the nation was in covenant in Isaiahs days therefore the nation of the Jewes were all disciples of Christ when the Apostles spent their pains in preaching according to the commission Mat. 10. 5 6. 4. There is no less dotage in the rest of his frivolous speech that it is plainly against out Saviours scope and end in giving the commission Mat. 28. 19. to understand make disciples in I said of all nations that if the whole of the nation be not in covenant in other nations as in the Land of Immanuel by vertue of this happy enlargement the opposition is utterly taken away the meaning of the words clouded and the Apostles at a losse for the understanding of them All which are but vain words The meaning is plain enough as I conceive it was understood so by the Apostles and hath been so by Expositors as I have shewed even by the chiefest of the Paedobaptists without any such construction as Mr. Blake makes Mr. Blake goes on thus And hereto accord the prophecies of the Scripture for the calling of the nations of the Gentiles God shall enlarge Iaphet and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem Gen. 9. 27. Sem was wholly in covenant not by pieces and parcells but universally in covenant Iaphet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude Psal. 28. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession It is not some among the nations of the heathen that are to be the inheritance of Christ but the heathen To which agrees Revel 11. 15. The Kingdomes of the Earth shall become the Kingdomes of the Lord and of his Christ Immanuel of old had one now he shall have more Kingdomes And they become his no other way than by discipling Gods Ministers are his men of War for subduing and captivating them 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. and Kingdoms are promised them not some in a Kingdom Alexander would not sit down with such a conquest neither would Jesus Christ. If to possess some in a Kingdome be to possess a Kingdom then Antichrist of long time hath had his Kingdom All Kings shall bow down before him all Nations shall serve him Psal. 72. 11. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee O Lord and shall glorify thy name Psal. 86. 9. Thou shalt call a nation which thou knowest not and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee Isaiah 55. 5. There God calls the nation and the nation doth answer Gods call In that day Israel shall be a third with Egypt and with Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord shall blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands and Israel my inheritance There Egypt and Assyria are in equipage with Israel all three sister-Churches Israel without any preheminence either Israel then was not a nation of Disciples a nation wholly within covenant or else there are to be national Churches the whole of the nation to be discipled and brought into Covenant Answ. Mr. Blake saith The prophecies of Scripture accord hereto that Mat. 28. 19. they were to make all in a nation disciples
childe by lineal descent of such a father 2. Outward Prerogatives that accompany such a birth as his words are Vindic. Foed cap. 40. whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement takes it in the worser part not as importing a descent from the father but from the mother and that mother a bond woman and therefore the children servants or bond slaves by reason of their being born after the flesh I will use the words of Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus Die Dominica April 26. 1620. sect 18. Contrà verò Ismael etsi patre libero attamen matre servanatus est porro partus ventrem sequitur nascendi ergo conditione servus fuit tales scilicet sunt qui Deo cultum exhibent servilem fusticiarii where he explains the Apostles words Gal. 4. Against this Mr. Bl. excepts Vindic. Foed cap. 40. 1. That I make the Apostles parallel to look at the Allegory and not at the History when the Text makes it plain that the Apostle looks at the History then and now are both Adverbs of time and relate to Ishmaels jears in person not to the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace Here he is wholly silent and answers in his Apology nothing at all Answ. I conceived in answering the second I had answered this exception But I now answer particularly I conceived he meant by the history those words v. 22. 23. and the forepart of the 29. v. As then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit And by the parallel he meant the later part of the 29. v. And the allegory to be that which answers to Ishmael to wit to seek righteousness by the Law and to Isaac to wit to seek righteousness by faith which may be seen in Bezas and Piscators Diagrams where Beza and Piscator make Ishmael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer or to be in the same rank as the type with the Justitiaries that seek righteousness by the Law which answers â—o Hagar whose gneration is after the flesh that is justification is by works and are cast out of the family of God excluded from the inheritance of life as Ishmael from Abrahams and Isaac to answer to believers by virtue of the Covenant of the Gospel answering to Sara whose birth is after the Spirit that is whose justification is by faith and so are in Abrahams house and heirs of eternal life Now it is true I do make the history to be in the forepart of the 29 v. and the mystery or allegory in the later not but that I acknowledg there is a history in both parts of the verse as the Adverbs then and now shew But it is not the same history in the later part of the verse which is in the former For then there should be nothing allegorized yea there would be a meer tautology if as Mr. Bâ— speaks then and now both adverbs of time relate to Ishmaâ—s jeers in person then the speech of the Apostle is inept or rather false For then it should be As Ishmael in person then jeered Isaac so now Ishmael in person jeers Isaac which is I say still a gross absurdity But the later part contains another history of what was done in the Apostles time where in the terms born after the flesh and after the spirit are allgorized and applied to other sorts of persons and the term now relates the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace as hath been fully proved before against Mr. Blake 2. ' â—M Bl. excepted that I shut out the literal sense both from the history and parallel and bring in an allegorical sense in both when the contrary is evident in the Text for though Ishmael be a Type of one under the covenant of works yet that Ishmael himself was a Justiciary or that he sought righteousness that way and persecuted Isaac under any such notion as a man for Gospel-righteousness Scripture hath no word or so much as any colour ' â— Answ. This exception is the same in effect with the former and in answering this the former was answered in my Postscript sect 5. and now this is answered by answering the former yet I finde a necessity to add something by reason of Mr. Bls. unreasonable importunity I take notice that Ishmael is confessed to be a type of one under the covenant of works and whether he were himself a Justiciary is not material though sure there is some colour for it But this seems to be Mr. Bls. minde that in the parallel Gal. 4. 29. there 's no allegorical sense because Ishmael himself was not a Justitiary which reason rests on this conceit that neither in the forepart nor the later part of v. 29. by he that was born after the flesh is meant any other than Ishmael himself or in person which how it makes the Apostles speech tautological or false is shewed before Mr. Bl. goes on To this he answers he shuts not out the literal sense from the History but from the parallel and that is so far from being contrary to the Text that it is expresly sayd These things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Allegory I desire the Reader to take notice what kinde of interpretation Mr. T. will put on this Text and who will have him pass for an eminent Scripture interpreter when Mr. B. is a man in his high censure defective in it Then and now are both Adverbs of time and we must have a literal then and a mystical now one of them to answer the History and the other the Allegory if my interpretation be thus gross I desire the Reader to disclaim it either the Hâ—story must be wholly looked at in the parallel or else the Allegory there is that harmony between the Apostles then and now that will not admit such divorce and separation Answ. What I sayd of Mr. Bs. interpretations of Scripture in my Praecursor sect 3. appears by this writing to be right and will appear more hereafter Did he measure himself suâ— modulo ac pedâ— he would be more cautelous than he is in expounding Scripture and if he did take warning by my words the Church of God would have cause to thank me for them however he or Mr. Bl. take them I am sorry that the Reader and my self are troubled about such stâ—rtings rather than arguings which Mr. Bl. here and elsewhere useth which sure do ill become him who should at the years he is now of rather weigh things than lightly pass ever them with satyrical quips instead of arguments He may take notice that I make no mystical Now Gal. 4. 29. but in both parts the Adverbs of time are literal and yet the terms he that is born after the flesh and he that is born after the spirit are without any absuâ—dity meant allegorically as I have both sayd and demonstrated 3. Sayth Mr. Bl. I
meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all that I know interpreters besides himself they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now do note legal Justitiaries who are there called the children of the bond-woman not called Abrahams seed for those he had determined before to be those of the faith Gal. 3. 9. Christs v. 29. nor to inherit but cast out he on the contrary makes them Abrahams seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9. And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh Whereas the term born after the flesh is taken in the worser part precisely from the birth from the bond-woman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege but a privation of privilege As for Mr. Bayn though he interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham and proves there that it notes not legal Justitiaries because it is applyed to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things 1. In that he saith Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of a natural seed yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges 2. That he makes his exposition of children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8 to be his exposition of those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. whereas he expresly saith though children of the flesh in some other Scripture which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not onely a Type of Justitiaries Gal. 4. 23 29. but also Rom. 9. 7 8 9. and Isaac a Type of believers in both places and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justitiaries and believers but of uncalled and called non-elect and elect and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brethre◠from the later which to me seems not right for me thinks the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have this sense that the thing he had sayd before did not onely appear in Ishmael and Isaac but also more fully in Esau and Jacob which me thinks imports that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob which he did by Ishmael and Isaac and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10 to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not onely so but also they being connexive particles and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis But Cameron and all others I know understand by those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4 29. legal Justitiaries Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism c. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law which as it bego◠by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation My fourth exception was whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants to be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a childe interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this If Mr. Tombs his Gloss borrowed from Arminius must stand for the sense of the place that to be born of the flesh is to be under the covenant of works then it will hardly be avoided but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature according to the flesh then the Argument is valid Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. than I do is shewed above yet if it were true that he did as Mr. Bl. mis-allegeth him interpret born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9. 8. he conceived this term children of the flesh to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him And for that he sayth I borrow my Gloss from Arminius I answer I have shewed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words and have the concurrent judgment of many Divines of best note to whom it is no disparagement that in this Arminius joyns SECT XXIII Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled THere is another Text to wit Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob pag. 76. c. which if their arguing were good would not onely prove the practice of infant-baptism but also that it is a principle of Christianity and part of the foundation The arguing is to this effect If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptized in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent The Antecedent is proved by parts 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit For then the knowledg of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledg which is absurd To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledg those gifts being though by extraordinary power yet frequent in those days and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ that he was the Son of God and shewed that he was gone up to the Father else the Spirit had not descended it was it by which the world was rebuked and the Saints established To this sayth Dr. Homes that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination because it was still in use and to continue to be used Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my