baptized He tells us how he means by disciples which meaning of his is before proved not to be the meaning of the text and then saith His major is evident in the text from the conjunction of the two commands Go make me disciples baptizing them If any shall be so quarrelsome against the plain tezt to say It is not all disciples that they were commanded to baptize but only all that were made disciples and this making was onely by teaching I answer 1. If I prove infants Disciples I sure prove therby they were made so or else they they had never been so 2. By teaching the parents and children were both made disciples the parents directly the infants remotely or mediately if they be proved once to be disciples it will easily follow it is by this way He that converteth the parent maketh both him and his infants disciples incompleat or in title This therefore lies on the proof of the Minor 3. But I would say more to this but that Mr. T. as I understand hath in his Sermons professed That if we will prove that infants are Christs Disciples he will acknowledge that they ought to be baptized the like he granted to me and well he may Answ. 1. It is well Mr. B. grants that to go make disciples baptizing them are two Commands and that there is a conjunction of them whence it follows that he appoints not baptizing till the making of disciples nor of any but disciples made as Christ appointed 2. It is no quarrel against the plain text but the very plain doctrine of the text to say It is not all disciples visibly or invisibly directly or remotely compleatly or incompleatly in reality or in title that they were commanded to baptize but only all that were made disciples and this making was only by teaching or preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15. 3. It is true I have often granted that if it be proved infants are Christs disciples made by preaching to them the Gospel they ought to be baptized But when I granted this it did not come into my thoughts that Mr. B. would ever have hatched much lesse have printed such wild nonsense fancies as here he doth of a disciple by title without learning like a King of Jerusalem without reigning or the Popes Bishop of Chalcedon without overseeing of teaching remotely in the Parents conversion without any personal teaching in themselves For which fancies he neither brings a text of Scripture nor any approved Author nor any other besides himself thus speaking Such distinctions are but meer abuses as are without any instance of such an use of terms And to shew the grossnesse of this foppery of Mr. B. which a School boy may easily discern that hath gone no further than Qui mihi discipulâ—s I argue thus 1. If he that converteth the parent maketh the infant a disciple then either because the infant is an infant and then evrey infant should be made a disciple by that conversion or because his child and then every child is made a disciple yea though he be a professed infidel or both and then it would be shewed what grant there is to the child while infant which ceaseth when grown up where the relation of a disciple in his sense is appropriated only to infant child Yea all the plea is by teaching the parents and children were both made disciples therefore this relation comes from being a child of such a one But the professed infidel child is the child of the Father therefore also a disciple in title and to be baptized after Mr. Bs. doctrine 2. If children be made disciples remotely and mediately according to the command Matth. 28. 19. in that the parent is converted and that the teaching of the parent is the teaching of the child then it follows he that teacheth the Father hath done his duty of teaching though he teach not the child himself and so a preacher need not at all go and catechize each child but only preach to parents It would be ill with Kederminster if it should be so there But this follows according to Mr. Bs. exposition of Christs command Mat. 28. 19. 3. It will follow as well that he that baptizeth the Father baptizeth the child for there is a conjunction of these commands and the baptizing is to be correspondent to the teaching if then the teaching the parent is the teaching the child then is the baptizing the parent the baptizing the child according to the command and so the command is only to baptize in another him who is taught in another and it is a gross transgression of Christs command to baptize him in himself who is only a disciple in another 4. Forasmuch as Mr. B. doth not limit the childs being a disciple or teaching remotely to the next parents being converted he that shall teach the Grandfather great Grandfather c. teacheth the child makes him a disciple yea according to his doctrine pag. 101. he that converts the Master of the house makes his servants and those that are at his dispose though not his children whom he would have baptized disciples for sure he would not have them baptized that are not disciples Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether this be not as gross and pernicious a delusion as Hart the Jesuit held so much exagitated in the conference by Dr. Raynold ch 2. divis 7. That the Pope preacheth by another to say he that teacheth the parent teacheth the child Assuredly had I ever dreamed that Mr. B. had such phantastick if not frantick notions I had denyed his major and do now expresly deny it in his sense All that are Christs disciples incompleatly in title only remotely by the parents conversion without their own ordinarily ought to be baptized and expect it to be proved by him ad Graecas Calendas Nor would I have laid the stress of the argument on the proof of his Minor if I had understood his deceitful gibberish by which he detestably abused many people and perverted Christs words But it is my lot to answer such a writer and I follow him He next goes about to prove his minor thus That some infants are Christs disciples and so called by the Holy Ghost is most evident to any that will not grosly pervert the text or overlook it in Acts 15. 10. why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear now who were these disciples no doubt those on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke And what was that yoke It is plain it was Circumcision as necessary and as engaging them to keep the Law And whom would they have perswaded thus to be circumcised Why both the Parents and Children in that Age and only the Children in all following Ages ordinarily So that thus I argu Those on whose necks the false Teachers would have laid this yoke were Disciples But some yea most of
own and others conceits of his writings for infant-baptism I should think it lost time to bestow it in an exact examination of his inconsiderable dictates As for the present instance of M. B. of the Apostles arguing from analogy he may see it now fallen and so likewise the next of which he speaks thus I instanced in the Apostles arguing 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he makes it good that partaking together of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are made one Ecclesiastical body by way of Analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles to which Mr. T. saies this argument is to prove that they which profess Christ may not partake of the things of Idols From this general truth that they which join in the service of any God they hold Communion with that God and are one with those that worship that God this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian and Jewish services So that this argument is from a genoral truth proved by induction of instances Mr. T. mistakes the Apostle takes no such general truth for granted but affirms that we are one body at the Lords table which he first proves by analogy in the instances mentioned and then concludes thence against communion with Idols That which the Apostle disputes he lâ—ies down but we have not these words in the text Answ. There is no mistake in my Analysis of the Apostles words He had v. 14. warned them of Idolatry to wit in going with the Infidels to their Idol feasts and to make them more heedful of what he said he prefaceth v. 19. And then argues not thus they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one Ecclesiastical body by way of analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles For then the conclusion to be proved should be we are one body Ecclesiastical at the Lords table and the sacrifices of the Gentiles should be the medium to prove it which had been ursi for such a proof nor in any passage of the Apostle is used to that end For how inept an Argument had this been the Gentiles in their sacrifices had communion with the Idol therefore they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one body Ecclesiastical Nor would the proof be much otherwise if it were thus as Mr. Blake makes it we are one body Ecclesiastical who partake of the Lords Supper therefore in Gentile sacrifices we communicate with Idols And me thinks there is a circle in this proof by the Gentiles sacrifices to prove we are one body Ecclesiastical in the Lords Supper and thence to prove we communicate with Idols in Gentile sacrifices But the scope of the Apostle appears by the words v. 14. and v. 19 20 21. evidently to be the disswading them from the Idol-feasts on their sacrifices because they had therein fellowship with the Idol did partake of its cup and table and so with Devils v. 20 21. which had been an argument in concludent were it not thus made To have fellowship with the Idol is evil to be avoided by Christians as being Communion with Devils But to partake of the thing offered to Idols is to have fellowship with the Idol Ergo The Minor which alone is proved rests on this general maxim They have fellowship with a true or supposed Deity who partake of his service and this the Apostle proves to be true by the instances of the Christians and the Israelites v. 16 17 18. I know sundry Protestant Expositors make the argument to be thus Ye may not partake of the Idol banquets because ye are partakers of the Lords supper But I conceive this not right For v. 16 17. the Apostles medium is not from the matter of fact what they did or duty what they were to do but from the tendence of their action in common construction and interpretation of the end and use of such actions which did shew they had Communion in the body of Christ. Which is clearly proved from v. 18. where the Apostle allegeth the Israelites partaking of their altar to the same purpose to which he had used the former v. 16 17. now the Christians neither did nor were to partake then of the Jewish altar and it is not a reason from their fact or duty but onely from that wherein Christians breaking bread Jews and Gentiles eating of their sacrifices did agree that these actions testified their fellowship with that Lord for whom these services were performed And therefore by Piscator Dicson and others the argument is thus framed Israelites by eating of the sacrifices testified they were professors and partakers of the Jewish religion therefore they that eat of Idol sacrifices they testify that they Communicate with Idolaters in their idolatry Yea Mr. Blake himself in his answer to my Letter pag. 74. doth plainly acknowledge the Apostles argument to be from a general maxim common to all religious service when he saith yea he further makes it good that which he concluded before in the words following even from the Heathen it is of the nature of religious worship whether true or false to make those of one body as I may say religious that partake of them Whence it is apparent that it is not an argument to prove any duty in a Christian rite of the New Testament from the ceremonial law sith it is by his own confession even from the Gentiles sactifices which sure by analogy or resemblance being altogether forbidden cannot make us a rule in Christian meer positive worship and therefore there is no such argument in the Apostles speech from analogy as I oppâ—gn Mr. Blake yet adds I instanced in Christs defence of his disciples from the charge of the Pharisees Mat. 12. 3 4. by analogy and proportion of the like in David Mr. T. answers that is only an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy a ceremonial to a moral duty not an argument from meer analogy or resemblance of things different He proves that truth then by analogy if not by meer analogy and he tells us of no other thing that is joined to help it out and make it an argument compleat To these abundance more might be added Answ. It is enough to shew this instance impertinent in that it is not from such analogy as is used to prove Infant-baptism by Infant-circumcision Thus it was in a rite in the old Testament upon this ground Ergo it must be so in a rite of the New Testament because the same pretended ground remains other than Gods command or institution which I called meer analogy in meer positives without a distinct command about each rite As for my exposition it was right that Christ allegeth Davids fact as an instance that ceremonials give place to morals and sacrifice to mercy as appears by v. 7. And hence in giving rules about exposition of the Decalogue usually from this passage a rule is
Testament a man was accounted of God as uncircumcised himself if his children were uncircumcised for so it is written in Exod. 12. 48. that if a man will come and keep the Passeover all the males in his house must be circumcised and the reason given is for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof which plainly argueth that a man is uncircumcised himself and as an uncircumcised person is to be debarred from the Passeover until all his males be circumcised If then our Lords Supper come in the room of the Passeover and our baptism in the room of circumcision look as he that had not circumcised his males was accounted as one uncircumcised himself and so to be debarred from the Passeover so he who hath not baptized his children is accounted of God as not baptized himself and so to be debarred from the Lords Supper Answ. That baptism and the Lords Supper come in the room of Circumcision and the Passeover is often said but never proved But if it were granted though I still deny it yet Mr. Cottons inference is not good till it be also yielded that every rule of Circumcision and the Passeover is a rule to us about Baptism and the Lords Supper which me thinks he should not maintain Nor do I think he can give any reason why in this the rule should bind more than in others Yea did he consider it he might have perceived that if the proportion be stretched according to this rule no parent must be counted baptized nor to eat the Lords Supper except he had not only all his children baptized but also all his Servants For the males to be circumcised were not only children but servants also and so those must be baptized who are out of covenant and a national church must be foâ—med like to the Jews which I think were hated of him as the blind and the lame were of Davids soul. And methinks it should follow that if it happen as it may happen many waies especially in new England where many baptized persons may not have their children baptized because the parents are not Church-members the infants be unbaptized the parent is to be baptized again because counted of God and according to Scripture phrase if Mr. Cottons dictates hold unbaptized Which being absurd I count his inference If therefore you forbid baptism to children you evacuate the baptism of their parents and so make the Commandment of God and the Commission of the Apostles and the baptism of believers of none effect together with that other passage of his pag. 4. If godly parents do withdraw their children from the covenant and the seal of the Covenant they do make void as much as in them lyeth the Covenant both to themselves and to their children also And then will the Lord cut off such souls from his people Gen. 17. 14. to be meer Mormoes or bugbears to fright children though I am afraid they are used for a further evil end to incite Magistrates a gainst Antipaedo baptists and to justify their hard dealing with then in new England That which Mr. Cotton addes That if we gather no infant are disciples from Mark 16. 16. compared with Matth. 28. 1â— because believer and disciple are terms of the same sense and iâ— fants not believers it would follow that no infant were capable of salvation any more than baptism I have answered in my Praecursor s. 6. That which he speaks of the Gospel That the promise of being God to believers and their seed is to be preached as Gospel according to Mark 16. 15. and if his allegations of Acts 16. 31. Luke 19. 9. Gal. 3 16 17. be right and his words true p. 22. God hath promised salvation to believers and their seed and house also is so palpably false that Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree do both disclaim It as contrary to Protestant doctrine as I shew in my Apology s. 9. That which he saith pag. 24. ' That the expounding baptizing into the Father Son and Holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. thus baptize them into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed is to assert that we are to be baptized into the name of Creatures for profession is an act of our own and so a creature which he counteth an effect of Gods judgement taking men in their own wiliness while they turn the glorious name of the blessed Trinity into the weak performance of a Christian duty is a frivolous quillet unfit for so grave a man James ch 5. 14. To anoint with oyl in the name of the Lord id est saith Beza invocato nomine Domini the New Annot. by calling on the name of the Lord which is a work of their own Do they therein turn the name of the glorious God into a Creature But enough of this childish chapter of Mr. Cotton in which I find so little worth answering that were it not for the esteem he had and his acquainting me with this piece in his letter to me I should have chosen to have let it passe as not worth the labour bestowed in answering it Mr. William Cook in his Font uncovered pag. 13. brings Acts 21. 4 5. To prove that infants in their mothers arms were reckoned among disciples and makes the enumeration there to answer Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Ezra 8. 21. And whereas it might be said that the children are distinguished from the disciples he prevents this by retortion their wives are distinguished from disciples yet might be disciples so the children Answ. 1. The places are no way parralel in the matter nor exactly in the enumeration made in the former there is mention of servants none here all were of duty there to enter into covenant the whole nation together not so here in the later place no mention of wives and the business was a solemn humiliation for them upon their return from captivity but here only a courteous accompanying of Paul to the ship 2. I grant the wives are not necessarily excluded from being disciples nor children by the enumeration Acts 21. 5. nor are they necessary to be included but how doth Mr. Cook prove the the children babes carried in armes or such little ones as had not abilities of understanding More likely this thing being done by common consent the wives and children were of years to conceive what they did whether already baptized disciples or persons catechized and expectants it is uncertain I shall now finding nothing needing more answer in Mr. Cobbet part 2. ch 3. s. 4. but what will fitly come in when I answer Mr. Baxter pass on to the answering Mr. Baxters third chapter of the first part of his plain Scripture proof c. where he thus argues SECT XII Mr. Bs. allegation of Acts 15. 10. to prove infants disciples is fully answered his arguments retorted ALL that are Christs disciples ordinarily ought to be baptized But some infants are Christs disciples Therefore some infants ordinarily ought to 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
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
the flesh that is being the childe of a believer by natural generation but that he deduceth their casting out of the Church from it and that the birth after the flesh is taken in the worser part as that which bringeth bondage not Church estate or Christian liberty nor doth birth after the flesh respect the descent from a believer but the bond-woman and that this birth is in the Antitype allegoâ—ical and yet the Adverbs then and now are Adverbs of time and a history is related in both parts of the 29. v. of Gal. 4. Generally interpreters take the words even so it is now as meant of the Jews which cannot be true literally for they were not born after the flesh that is of bond-women but of free-women which were true Israelites or daughters of Abraham as Mr. B. here confesseth Mr. Bl. proceeds Secondly he sayth that I say such are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth they persecute the Church and are cast out I desire the Reader to consider if this had any truth in it whether it hold with greater strength for me or him They are cast out and therefore they were in is my Argument they are cast out and therefore were never in sayth Mr. T. 2. The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out Ishmael was in the family when he persecuted though afterwards he was cast out of the family these are in the Church though in case they continue persecution they shall in fine be cast out now in present they have a being in it Answ. It is true that this was my second Exception against his gross perverting of the Apostles words even so it is now as if the meaning were that by virtue of being born after the flesh some infants to wit those that are born of a believing parent are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth 1. They persecute which cannot be meant of infants 2. In that they are born after the flesh they persecute the Church therefore he ascribes no privilege to them as accruing to them by the birth after the flesh but a cursed practice 3. That they persecute the Church therefore while born after the flesh they were not in the bosom of the Church that is the Church Christian visible 4. That they are cast out therefore not in the Church To the two first of these nothing is answered the consequence of the third is denied he supposeth they did persecute the Church and yet remained in which is most palpably false For this being apparently meant of the unbelieving Jews that sought righteousness by the Law and acknowledged so by Interpreters it is notoriously false that they were in the bosom of the Christian Church while they did persecute the Church yea Saul himself was not after his conversion taken in presently to communion with the Disciples at Jerusalem till they knew that he ceased to be a persecutor Acts 9. 26. so that the words even so it is now expounded as Mr. Bls. words intimate even so now by virtue of being born after the flesh that is by natural generation born of a believing parent there are some even infants that are in the bosom of the Christian visible Church as members of it and remaining in it do persecute the Church are so false and the Exposition so unsavoury that it is a wonder to me that neither Mr. Bl. nor the Prefacers to his Book take care to have it left out That which Mr. Bl. answers to the fourth thing in this exception is of like stamp 1. He sayth It follows not they were cast out therefore never in But my Argument is this they were by reason of their being born after the flesh cast out therefore not for this reason in the bosom of the Church 2. That it follows they are cast out therefore they were in which consequence I deny being understood of the Church Christian visible and the particular persons who are sayd to be cast out for they are sayd to be cast out not from what they had but from what they might have had or others had as Matth. 8. 12. it is sayd The children of the Kingdom shall be east out of the Kingdom of Heaven v. 11. in which others were and they not into outer darkness He sayth also The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out but mentions a command of casting them out To which I replied As if Gods dictum were not factum if they were not cast out why doth the Apostle allege that Text My meaning was Gods speech of the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael was not a bare command but such as included a sentence and decree of God which he took course to execute and that the Apostle allegeth the Text not to prove a duty but to shew an event or fact of God For as the Apostle allegeth it the casting out is of the legal covenant and the children of it those that desired to be under the Law and their casting out is their rejecting from the inheritance of righteousness and being Gods people now this could not be any mans duty but Gods act determining and accordingly accomplishing this sentence that righteousness shall not be by the Law nor Justitiaries his people and therefore it is most absurd in Mr. Bl. to determine that some by virtue of being born after the flesh have a right to be in the bosom of the Church Christian when the Apostle determines they are for this reason rejected or cast out I had thirdly excepted against Mr. Bl. as making those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed wherein he joyns with Arminius in calling them Abrahams seed who sought justice in the Law Mr. Bl. Vindic. Foed cap. 40. sayth I joyn with Arminius and that he follows Mr. Bayne For sayth he I interpret it of a natural seed that inherit outward privileges and never reach the birth of the spirit so Mr. Baines interprets it the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham Baines on Ephes. 1. pag. 140. quarto Answ. It is true Mr. Bayne hath those words but yet he excepteth pag. 139. against Arminius as I do for calling legal justitiaries who are meant by they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed For there he thus speaks Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken It is true that Mr. Baines so interprets the term children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bl. hath cited him which place he meant by here but not the teâ—m he that is born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. yea pag. 138. he saith For though children of the flesh in some other Scripture meaning Gal. 4. 29. doth note out justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here Rom. 9. 8. the literal
yoke-fellows 5. There is nothing to answer those words because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith and kept from heathen pollutions and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents doth reasonably presume they will 6. Nor is there any thing answering to these words your children which his own Paraphrase applies to Christians children So that the Doctors Paraphrase is beyond measure culpable in respect of addition 2. It is blameable also in omitting that which the Text expresly and emphatically mentions to wit the terms Wife Husband when he sayth the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and after the probability that the conversation of the believer should bring the unbeliever to the faith which may be meant of a companion brother father mother neighbour 3. There is much faultiness in quite altering the importance of the Apostles words by substituting instead of were or should be in the Apostles words ought to be they will be in the Paraphrase Which is the more blameable in that himself Sect. 82 pag. 257. doth more truly retain the force of those expressions in the Apostle when he sayth The method of the Apostle must needs be this unless there were c. ' â—would certainly follow that their children were unclean so that the pretended brief Paraphrase of the Apostles words is very faulty far from the Rule of a Paraphrase and instead of explaining doth quite pervert the meaning of the words 2. For many other reasons the exposition of the Doctor cannot be right For 1. In his paraphrase of the Apostles resolution v. 12. he puts ought and of v. 13. let her by no means as if the Apostle did make it a necessary duty that they must continue together whereas the Apostle answerably to their doubt doth onely resolve them of the lawfulness of their continuing together not of the necessity of it and so v. 14. is a reason of the lawfulness of it notwithstanding their doubt which appears from the resolution v. 15. If the unbeliever will depart let him depart which cannot be expounded otherwise than thus you are not bound to stay as you are not bound to cause her to depart or to relinquish him you are at your liberty For the very next words a Brother or Sister is not under bondage in such cases do shew that the resolution was of liberty not of duty contrary to the Doctors paraphrase Now that resolution v. 15. is of the same form with his determination v. 12 13. 2. He makes the resolution to be of a duty v. 12 13. yet makes v. 14. to be a motive of the will when he saith may reasonably move as if the Apostle were not deciding a doubt but perswading the will and that from such a thing as cannot be reason of duty or liberty but as it is by him expounded a perswasive to win on the affections not to settle the judgment and yet p. 207. he saith the unbeliever having been sanctified by the believer is used as an argument why they should live together 3. He puts unbelieving Husband v. 14. as if he were another than he that is mentioned v. 13. for v. 13. the unbelieving husband was at that present an unbeliever But according to his sense expounding v. 14. thus it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer the unbelleving husband must be meant of one that was once an unbeliever not so then Now then the Apostle should after this exposition give a reason why the present believing wife need not leave her husband because another unbelieving husband by another believing wife hath been brought to the faith Which wherein it could tend to any satisfaction for them that doubted whether they might lawfully live together because of the present unbelief of the yoke-fellow I see not 4. Such a reason will appear the more unlikely to be satisfactory because as it hath often happened that the unbeliever hath been won by the wife so it hath often happened to the contrary and it is likely the persons whom he resolved had complained that they had small hopes of their husbands conversion and so the reason of their living together from experience would be more likely to be retorted back thus You perswde us to live together you tell us we may because it often comes to pass that the unbeliever is brought to the faith But our experience is to the contrary we see many not converted and our own are obstinate and hardned and therefore this reason doth disswade us and resolve us that we may not live with him 5. Hence another exception is against this exposition that it makes the Apostle to resolve them of their duty or liberty by that which was a meer contingent event which might be or not be For this exposition makes the reason of their living together to be from what had hapened might be whereas a contingent event is impertinent to that end to say we may lawfully do such a thing because its likely such a good effect may follow A contingent event is unfit to resolve of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a thing without some other rule things being unlawfull or lawfull not according to disagreement from or agreement to Gods will of purpose what shall be but his will of Command what he requires to be omitted or done Besides this contingent event here was uncertain as appears v. 16. what knowest thou implies thou canst not tell whether thou shalt save thy husband Perhaps thou mayst Nor doth the Apostle mention any promise it should be so but mentions it onely as a contingent event that might be or not be 6. Besides it is from such an event as is impertinent to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of living together For the past conversion of others and the future conversion of our own yoke-fellows is meerly extrinsecal to our duty or liberty though it be much to our conveniency and therefore it is fitly urged v. 16. after the resolution of the judgment v. 12 13 14 15. Is there any shew of reason why I should live with my own unbelieving husband because anothers unbelieving husband was converted by her or because there is great reason of hope it will be so with mine This would intimate that future events make our present state or acts lawfull or unlawfull which is somewhat like the Turks conceit who judged that pleaseth God which succeeds prosperously and that to displease which fals out unhappily 7. According to this Exposition v. 14. should be the same Argument with v. 16. and so there should be an unnecessary repetition of the same Argument 8. By this exposition the sanctifying of an unbeliever should be ascribed to a woman whereas though I deny not that she is