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
what was imposed on infants but on persons taught and commanded As for Mr. Bs. reasons the first he himself answers by his second For he saith that doctrine was true to the Jews before Christ therefore sure the Fathers were acquainted with it it was doctrine known among them whether the Scripture mention it or no and whether it were true or false if it were received by them it must needs be burdensome to them And for his second 1. That it was true doctrine to the Jews before Christ that except they were circumcised after the maner of Moses they could not be saved and that it was needfull to circumcise them and to Command them to keep the Law v. 1. 5. is in my apprehension diametrally opposite to Pauls doctrine Gal. 2. 3. 4. 5. Rom. 3. 4. 10. Phil. 3. concerning the non-necessity of observing the Law for justification justification by faith without the works of the Law both in Abrahams Davids Moses his time 2. If the doctrine were true to the Jews it was the more intolerable it wouldly the more heavy on their consciences finding themselves unable to observe it therefore this reason is against Mr. B. and proves the doctrine was the yoke But he adds Mr. T. saith it was the Pharisees doctrine of being justified by the Law which was the yoke But I answer 1. the Pharisees were not of so long continuance as to be the burden of the Fathers by their doctrine 2. these in the Text taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law so did not the Pharisees Answ. 1. Those in the Text taught not onely a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law by way of Precept but also of means that except they did so they could not be saved and that was still taken by the Apostle in the Epistles to the Romans Galatians Philippians as the Doctrine of Justification by the Law And that this was the yoke which was so intolerable Acts 15. 10. appears by the next words ver 11. But we trust or believe to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ even as also they The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but being adversative shews the Apostles assertion v. 11. to contain an Antithesis to their Thesis or Doctrine that is whereas they impose this intolerable yoke of Doctrine that without Circumcision and keeping the Law Disciples cannot be saved We believe they may be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ purifying their hearts by faith v 9 without the observation of Moses Law 2. It is not true that they taught onely a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law as if they exempted others For though there is mention onely of their teaching the Brethren yet doubtless they held a like necessity of it or rather a greater for Jews whether converted or unconverted as for Christian Gentiles 3. But were it true that they taught but a necessity that those who believed in Christ should be circumcised and keep the Law yet the Doctrine might be an intolerable yoke both to Disciples and to the Ancestors from whomsoever they learn'd it Whose Doctrine soever it were yet it was a yoke intolerable to present Disciples and the Predecessors of former Generations 4. The antiquity of the Pharisees is variously conceived by Writers it is conceived that Sect began three hundred years before the birth of Christ by some higher sure they were ancient enough to burden the Fathers that is the Ancestours of the modern Jews when Peter spake those words 5. Were it that others spake that Doctrine and burdened the Fathers with it yet it might be well called by me the Pharises Doctrine who taught it afterwards 6. That Mr. Bs. willingness to cavil may appear let v. 5. be read and there it is said The false Teachers were of the Sect of the Pharisees 3. Saith Mr. B. The Doctrine is no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision and keeping the Law in practice and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice therefore it is evident that the Doctrine is not the yoke but the judgment and practice which that Doctrine did teach them else it would be in the power of men to yoke and burden us at their pleasure But till we obey it we are free from the yoke therefore the yoke lieth not in the Doctrine but the obeying Answ. This Argument however faulty yet it plainly crosseth Mr. Bs. purpose for his aim is to expound the yoke so as that it may be said to be laid on infants and so they be reckoned for Disciples but if it be that the judgment and practice which the Doctrire did teach were the yoke if the yoke didly in obeying as he here saith then the yoke was not put or endeavoured to be put on infants the false Teachers neither did put nor endeavoured to put any thing on the judgment or practice of infants nor to have brought them to obeying What was to be done to them was not to be done by false Teachers but the Parents there was no act to be done on the infants mindes consciences judgments but on their flesh nor were they to be active in practice or willing in obedience but meerly passive and likely very unwillingly And therefore I infer from Mr. Bs. own Argument If the Doctrine were no further a yoke than as it hath reference to Circumcision and keeping the Law in practice and as it prevaileth to bring them to the belief and practice that the yoke is the judgment and practice which the doctrine did teach that it lieth in the obeying then it is no yoke to infants then it is not Circumcision as acted but as taught and yielded to then it was not to be put on infants and consequently no infants are meant by the Disciples Acts 15. 10. But for the thing objected as I have sayd before the doctrine may be considered either in se in it self as it came from the Teachers or in the event to the persons taught being yielded to by them It is true the doctrine was not à yoke to the Disciples eventually till the Disciples yielded to it but it was in it self a yoke and might so be called before as the truth of Christ is the Gospel or glad â—idings in it self and may be and is often so called though it prove not so to all that hear it Wherefore I have sometimes called the yoke the command sometimes the doctrine sometimes the necessity of observation sometimes the opinion of the necessity and all these in different respects are rightly made the Yoke in respect of God the command and necessity of observance of the Teachers the doctrine of the persons yoked the opinion and judgment when it becomes such in the event not onely in fieri but in facto esse yet no way
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
the Covenant and were not accidental to them Which how false it is how contrary to the Tenet of Divines former and later is shewed in my Examen part 3. Sect. 12. to which I may add the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 19. Art 3. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament And if all of them be abrogated how can it be true that the law about circumcising Infants still binds But Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 195. conceives his argument from the analogy of the Ceremonial law of Circumcision which he calls his Analogical argument pag. 201. good on the contrary I deny any argument from analogy of the Ceremonial law good in meer positive ceremonies to prove thus it was in the old Testament therefore it must be so in the new And thus I argue 1. Arguments from Analogy in meer positive Rites of the old Testament to make rules for observing meer positive Ceremonies of the new wthout institution gathered by precept or apostolical example or other declaration in the new Testament do suppose that without Institution there may be par ratio a like reason of the use of the one Ceremony as the other But this is not true For in positive Rites there is no reason for the use of this not another thing in this manner to this end by or to persons but the will of the appointer For there is not any thing natural or moral in them they have no general equity they are supposed to be meerly not mixtly positive Therefore where there is not the like Institution there is not a like reason and therefore this opinion of Analogy in positive Rites from a parity of reason without Institution in the new Testament is a meer fancy and no good ground for an argument To apply it to the case in hand Circumcision and Baptism are meerly positive ordinances Mr. B. cals them p. 9. Positives about worship Generally Sacraments by Divines are reckoned among meer positives Chamier Panstr Cath. Tom. 4. l. 2. c. 12. Sect. 20. nulla vera ratio Sacramentorum potest consistere absque institutione l. 7. c. 10. Sect. 1. nullum Sacramentum est à natura sua itaque prorsus ab institutione The places are innumerable in Protestant writers and others to prove this were it not that I find my Antagonists often forget what is elsewhere yielded by them I should not say so much the thing being so plain that there is nothing natural or moral in them because till they were appointed which was thousands of years after the creation they were not used nor taken for signs of that which they signified The reason then of Baptism and Circumcision is meerly Institution if then there be not the like Institution there is not the like reason This argument is confirmed by Mr. M◠grant Defence pag. 92. 182. the formal reason of the Iews being circumcised was the Command of God therefore there is not the like reason of Infant-baptism as of Infant-circumcision without the like command of God But there is no expresse command for Infant-baptism as Mr. M. confesseth therefore there is not par ratio like reason of the one as the other 2. I thus argue If all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews be now abrogated then no argument upon supposed analogy or parity of reason from the institution of those abrogated Rites can prove a binding rule to us about a meer positive Rite of the new Testament For how can that make a binding rule to us about another meer positive Rite without any other Institution which it self is abrogated that which binds not at all binds not about another thing v. g. Baptism But all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews are now abrogated as is proved in my Examen part 3. sect 12. and confessed by the Assembly Conf. of faith chap. 19. art 3. ergo none of them bind This argument is confirmed by the words of Mr Cawdrey Sabbat Rediv. part 2. chap. 7. sect 7. pag. 263. No ceremonial commandement can infer a moral commandement The reason of our assertion is this because partial commandments given to some Nation or persons as the Ceremonial precepts were cannot infer a general to oblige others even all the world Again Sect. 10. pag. 276. First it is so in all other like special and ceremonial Commandements concerning dayes whensoever the particular day was abrogated the whole Commandement concerning that day was utterly abolished the Law of Circumcision and of the Passeover is expired as well as the sacramental and ceremonial actions commanded by that law This Mr. M. conceived he had prevented by supposing that in some commands about the Sacraments of the Iews are some things that belong to the substance of the Covenant and limiting his assertion to those And when in my Examen pag. 115. I argued that in no good sense it can be true that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews contained things belonging to the substance of the Covenant he tels us pag. 198 199. of his Defence that our Sacraments have the same substance with theirs the same general nature end and use which he makes in these things theirs were seals of the Covenant so ours c. But none of all these are to the purpose his allegations tending onely to prove that our Sacraments and the Jews have the same general nature which he calls substance but not a word to shew that any command about them belonged to the substance of the Covenant but as if he were angry or did disdain a man should question his dictates onely recites his meaning and a passage or two of Protestant Authors and never answers a word to my objection Exam. pag. 115. that in no good sense could it be true that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant Yea when I animadverted on that saying in his Sermon the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types shadows and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant I reply saith he in his Defence pag. 99. this is a very small quarrell I added c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things Which words in the plain construction of them do note that Circumcision is comprehended in his c. as belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the Covenant And yet pag. 187. he hath these words I have already proved that is no where no not so much as in attempt that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance meaning of the Covenant of grace belong to it I say not as a part of it but as a means of applying it So uncertain and enterferring one
c. restraining it to the Infants of members joined in a Church gathered after the congregational way as it is called Mr. Cawdrey Mr. Blake Mr. Rutherfurd and others extend it farther master B. Plain scripture proof c. chap. 29. part 1. pag. 101. to all whosoever they be if they be at a believers dispose And both sides pretend analogy which being uncertain Mr. Ball after much debate about this difference as distrusting analogy determines thus in his reply to the answer of the new England Elders to the 9. posit posit 3. and 4 pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ which is as much as to say whatsoever their analogy or resemblance be we must look to the Institution therefore the Institution of each Sacrament must be our rule in the use of them not analogy and analogy is not sufficient to guide us without Institution and to shew that analogy serves not turn of it self to determine who are to be baptised he adds and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must assirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Which how they cut the sinews of the argument from Circumcision to Baptism without wrong to master Ball is shewed in my Apology Sect. 13. pag. 57. Mr. M. in his Desence pag. 83. Mr. Blake pag. 74 75. of his answer to my letter seem to deny that Paedobaptists do frame an addition to Gods worship from such analogy the contrary whereof is manifest from the passages cited before But Mr. Blake over and above pag. 75. sets down three cautions which being observed then this kind of arguing from analogy and proportion is without any such pretended danger The insufficieny of which cautions being shewed in my Postscript to the Apology Sect 17 pag. 143. I conceive it unnecessary to repeat my words which the Reader may here find and the vindication of them from what Mr. Blake opposeth in his vindiciae foederis chap 42. follows in the nex Section 4. I argued that if this way of making rules binding men consciences in meer positive worship from analogy of the ceremonies or rites of the Old Testament without institution in the New be valid then our Christian liberty from the Ceremonial Law is made void For by this way of determining things as of Gods appointment by our conceived analogy al or a great part of the Ceremonial Law may be put on our necks under pretence of analogy and so the fruit of Christs purchase of Christian liberty lost and we in vain exhorted to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free For as Chillingworth once told Knot the Jesuit if the Pope be made sole Judge of Centroversies infallible Expositor of Scripture it will be in effect all one as if he were allowed to make a new Scripture and Articles of faith and tyranny may be introduced as well by arbitrary expounding as well as by arbitrary making of laws so in this case the bondage of Moses his law may be put on our necks not onely by those that say it binds in the letter but also by those that say Gods commands about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us in the analogy and proportion 5. This argument hath strength from the sad experience the Church hath formerly and of late had in yielding to these reasonings from analogy in the many Canons of Popes and Prelates heavily loading Gods Church with rites and decrees about them imposed from analogy of the Ceremonial Laws of Moses The Constitutions of Popes and Canons of Prelates and the books of the maintainers of them expounding and defending their rituals and liturgies are full of them to wit rites about Priests their Orders Garments Dues Festivals Sacraments Votaries Religious houses and such like drawn from Mosaical Laws It is a common complaint of Protestants and Antiprelatists that in imitation of the Jews under pretence of analogy a new named Iudaism hath been brought into the Christian Church and the reforming of them like Hercules his labour in clensing Augias his stable Some I have named in my Examen part 3. s. 9. more I might In the Augustan Confession among the Articles of abuses in the chapter of the Ecclesiastick power it s the general complaint that Popish writers made a worship in the New Testament like the Levitical I may use Mr. Bs words in his Appendix to plain Scripture-proof c. pag. 302. And indeed if all that is not contrary to Scripture customs and that mans vain wit can find reasonable from Scripture must be admitted and that upon equal authority with Scripture if they do but take it for a tradition Apostolical Then 1. it will set mans wit a work to make God a worship or judge of the currantness of it according to his reason and one man will think it reasonable and another not 2. And what a multitude of Ceremonies will this admit into the Church to the burthening of mens consciences and the polluting of Gods worship Is not this the door that the body of Popish trash came in at and the Argument that hardneth them in it and hindereth their reformation to this day And if you open this Gap what a multitude of fopperies will rush in Certainly by this means the Gospel hath been shadow'd and repressed no stint either hath been or could be put to the inundation of such impositions as long as liberty hath been given under pretence of analogy with Jewish rites to add to the worship and discipline of the new Testament but it hath happened according to Austins Complaint Epist. 119. to Ianuarius that the state of the Jewish Church under Divine precepts hath been more tolerable than the Christian burdened with humane presumptions Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. th 15. Romanenses in suis ceremoniis partim imitati sunt Gentes partim Iudaeos th 17. Ceremoniae hujusmodi tollunt discrimen illud quod Deus voluit esse inter Iudaeos Christianos quia paedagogiam Iudaicae similem habent 6. If such Arguments from Analogy of Jewish rites abrogated may be valid to impose on mens consciences things about the worship of God then Popes and Prelates are not only unblamable and justifiable in so doing but also Protestants and Non-conformists will be unjustifiable in no yielding to them but opposing them Mr. Church Divine warrant of Infant-bapt pag. 49. in answer to these three latter reasons speaks thus Arguing from the Jewish types for the Substance of those shadowes tends neither to an introducement of Judaism nor yet to a justification of the Quisquilian toyes of the Papists for it is neither arguing for
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
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
proselytes but his Disciples that we might not confound the notions of these terms And though the origination of the word proselyte be from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come to and Christ saith Suffer little children to come to me and this infers their capacity of proselytism and the next words For of such is the Kingdom of God suppose them particularly qualified for it yet that coming and imagined proâ—elytism being onely for ablessing by prayer and laying on of hands not to be made Disciples or baptized this will not prove them capable of being made Disciples according to Christs appointment till by hearing the Gospel they own Christ as their Master The like may be said of the entering into Covenant Deut. 29. 10. which though in some sense it should be yielded that infants may enter into Covenant that is by their parents act engaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into Covenant v. 15. yet this is insufficient to prove that such an entering into Covenant makes infants Disciples or subjects of baptism according to Christs appointment For in it such a discipling is injoyned as is by Preaching the Gospel and they onely are Disciples to be baptized who are believers and they onely are appointed to be baptized who in their own persons do enter into Covenant or engage themselves to be Christs followers SECT XXVI Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor from Sayings of Ancients proves that the Apostles baptized infants HEreto Dr. Hammond adds to confirm his opinion of Christs intention to include infants in the institution of baptism for all Nations and not to exclude them from it the passage 1 Cor. 7. 14. in which he imagines is a remain and footstep of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants 2. The practice of the first and purest Ages of the Church which received infants to baptism and either by so doing testifie the Apostolical usage transcribed by them or else affirm that they received it by tradition from the Apostles In both which how he is mistaken remains to be shewed First he sets down this which he cais A brief Paraphrase though it be too large for a Paraphrase and takes in more than he can with any colour shew to have any thing in the Text answering to it His words of Paraphrase of 1 Corinth 7. 12 13 14. are these Vers. 12. If any Christian Husband hath an heathen Wife and she be desirous to continue with him he ought not to put her away unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ. Vers. 13. And so in like manner for the Christian Wife that is married to an Infidel if he be desirous to live with her let her by no means separate from him Vers. 14. For beside the command of Christ Matth. 5. 32. which obligeth to this other advantages there are of the believers living with the unbeleiver worth considering For by this means it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and considering the efficacy of good example 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal and consequent endeavours and diligence that by the Law of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him as a Wife is there is great reason of hope that still it may be so that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever and the intuition of that more than possible effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily And this one consideration viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer 1 Pet. 3. 1. should gain i. e. bring the unbeliever to the faith and the reasonable presumption that it will be so is the reason why the young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers are yet admitted to baptism because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith and kept from heathen pollutions and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents doth reasonably presume they will And upon this ground it is that though the children of Christians are yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism Answer This Paraphrase is many ways faulty and far from the meaning of the Apostle 1. It puts in many things as explicatory of the Text to which there is nothing answerable in the Apostles words For 1. there is nothing that answers to by this means it hath oft come to pass Nor 2. to these words by the company and conversation of the believer yea the term believer is quite omitted by the Apostle which considering the term unbeliever twice expressed seems to have been done wittingly that it might not be taken that he ascribed the sanctification to the faith of the one party Surely when men specially in Arguments place the force of a reason in a term they use not to omit it as the Apostle doth here but to express it remarkably and with Emphasis 3. All the words and considering the efficacy of good Example 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal and consequent endeavours and diligence that by the Laws of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near to him as a Wife is there is great reason of hope that it still may be so that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever and the intuition of that more than possibly effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily are added without any thing in the least intimated by the words of the Text but the contrary even according to his exposition who makes the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified refer to some past known Examples and therfore the forepart of the verse hath not at all that which answers to on presumption c. there is great reason of hope c. which import a contingent event for the future not a thing past which is always certain 4. The term young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers is more and otherwise than is in the Text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy nor doth it appear that your doth imply they were considered as Christians so as that there should be this construction your children are holy because they are children of Christians distinguishingly from infidels but your children that is the children of you that doubt who have had unbelieving husbands and wives and have had or may have children by them So that the term your onely notes the particularity and individuation of the persons and if considered in any respect besides it is their doubting condition or their having unbelieving