Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 12
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 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 onelyonly 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 discipul…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 those were infants on whose necks they would have laid this yoke: Therefore some Infants are Disciples, and so called here. The major is plain in the Text.]
Answ. The minor of Mr. Bs. Argument, that Infants are Christs Disciples, should not be understood of Disciples in that sense, that Christ appoints Disciples to be baptized, Matth. 28. 19. Discipleship in Mr. Bs. sense in title without learning, by remote teaching in the Parents conversion, being a sense unknown to the Scripture, and a meer figment of Mr. Bs. brain, is falsly said to be a scribed to infants by the Holy Ghost, or to have any evidence in Scripture for it: nor do I think any do more grosly pervert the Text, Acts 15. 10. or overloook it more than Mr. B. But let us look a little nearer on Mr. Bs. arguings: he premiseth three Questions, and answers them; concerning which I grant his answer to the first, that those were Disciples on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke. In his second Question and the Answerly sundry fallacies, 1. in that he puts the Question about the yoke what it was; whereas the Question that should have cleared the difficulty had been, what was the putting on of the yoke, (which Mr. B. doth I fear sophistically omit) the point in question being who are meant by [Disciples] and it being resolved by Mr. B. Those on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke, the Resolution must be not by knowing barely what the term [yoke] imported, but by knowing how they would lay the yoke, or what the act was of the false Teachers, termed, laying a yoke on their necks. Were the act effected or attempted, or intended onelyonly, it's that we must know what act it was, whether such as infants were the passive subjects of, or whether such onelyonly as persons of age were capable of? And here I conceive two ways they might be said to lay the yoke, one by cutting with their own hand off the little skin of the privy member, either of Parents or Children, or both, according to the rite of Moses Law; the other by teaching, perswading, charging Parents that they and their Children should be circumcised, or else they should not be saved; the former had been an act of their hands, this latter of their tongues; the former onelyonly can prove infants to be meant by [Disciples] if this latter be meant, then infants are not meant by [Disciples] for they were not subjects capable of that act. There was no act either effected or attempted on infants, but onelyonly the act of the hand using an instrument to cut off the skin. If they had attempted to act on infants the later way, by telling sucking children, you are to be circumcised, and to keep Moses Law, they had done rather like mad men than cunning Seducers. Mr. B. himself, when in the next words [And whom would they perswade to be circumcised?] and when after he confesseth, that which the false Teachers did, was Teaching, doth plainly intimate that the false Teachers act, in putting on the yoke, was onelyonly of the tongue, not of the hand, and therefore not infants the passive subject of it, and so not meant by Disciples. Yea, the Text it self clears what their act was, when it says, v. 1. They taught the brethren, v. 24. They trouble… ▪ them with words, subverting their souls, saying. And this is enough to shew the foppery of Mr. Bs. and others, arguings hence to prove infants Disciples, had they any minde to heed what is spoken. Those onelyonly are meant by Disciples who were Patients or passive subjects of the act of laying on the yoke: that is Mr. Bs. own major in effect: but infants were not such, for they were not taught, nor troubled with words, nor had their souls subverted by the sayings of false Teachers; therefore they were not the Disciples meant Acts 15. 10. 2. Concerning the Answer to the Question, as he lays it down, [That the yoke was Circumcision, as necessary, and as engaging them to keep the Law,] it may be meant either of the command concerning Circumcision, and so it is granted that the yoke was Circumcision, that is, the command of Circumcision propounded, and taught as necessary to the Disciples, that they might be saved, and engaging them to keep Moses Law; or by Circumcision is meant Circumcision in act, or actual Circumcision, as passively received in the flesh, and this it seems Mr. B. understands, sith it was it which was to be put on infants, and it onelyonly, in which sense it is not meant Acts 15. 10. as I have shewed. 3. The terms [as necessary, and ingaging them to keep Moses Law] may be understood variously, either as necessary and ingaging them in the opinion of the circumcised, so that the sense is, they would have laid the yoke on the necks of the Disciples, so as that the Disciples should have received circumcision with this opinion that thereby they were ingaged to keep Moses his Law, and in this sense it is true, the yoke was the command of Circumcision to beget this opinion, or else in the opinion of the Teachers or Circumcisers onelyonly, and so it is false, that the yoke was actual Circumcision as necessary, and ingaging to keep Moses Law, they did not onelyonly teach or circumcise, so as to have an opinion of this necessity, but so as to indeavour to possess those they would lay the yoke on, that it was necessary, and they were ingaged to keep Moses Law. As for his Answer to the third Question, according to the plain sense of the words, it is false, that they would have perswaded the children, I mean infant children, to be circumcised: For though they would perswade the Parents to be circumcised, and then to circumcise their children, yet that they would have perswaded the children, that is, that any of them went to an infant and would have perswaded him to be circumcised, is false, and the thing would have been ridiculous.
As for the argument from Acts 15. 10. as it was framed by Mr. M. I did Exam. pag. 135. deny the major, and gave my reason, it is not said, they would put it onelyonly on Disciples, it is more probable they endeavoured to put it on the necks of all, whether Disciples or others, as a thing universally necessary to salvation, v. 1. which Mr. M. in his Defence overthrows not, but puts it off without answer, onelyonly imagines that then I cannot evince from Matth. 3 5, 6. Acts 2. 42, &c. that John and Christs Disciples baptized onelyonly penitent believers. But I presume Mr. M. will be better advised than to make it alike argumentative to prove all were Disciples on whom the false Teachers would have put the yoke, from Acts 15 10. and to prove that there was Baptism in the New Testament but of penitent believers, from the perpetual course of the history thereof, in the former Disciples being onelyonly mentioned occasionaly in condemning a fact done to them, in the other are set narrations of Acts done in the Church of God, and therefore there would have been a defect in the narration if there had been any other than penitent believers then Baptized,
But Mr. B. pleads thus, If any will say, that it is not all, but some of those on whom they would have laid the yoke that are here called disciples, that is onelyonly them at age, I answer, Then it is but some onelyonly whose Circumcision the Apostle and the Synod doth conclude against, that is those of age. For he speaks against laying the yoke on none but Disciples, And then for any thing the Apostle saith, or this Synod, all infants might be circumcised still: which is a most grosse absurdity, when the very business of this Synod was to decree against the necessity of Circumcision and the Law. To which I replied, I denied the major as expressed by Mr. M. thus [all they upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision are called Disciples and to be called Disciples] because I conceived they would by their teaching put a necessity of circumcision even on unconverted Jews who are no Disciples, yea upon all persons whatsoeuer, holding of all sorts of persons that except they were circumcised and kept the Law of Moses they could not be saved. And in like sort I deny the major of Mr. Bs. Argument if it be universal, all those on whose necks the false Teachers would have laid the yoke mentioned Acts 15. 10. were Disciples. Nor is it plain in the Text, there is no more plain in the Text but this, that the persons expressed Acts 15. 10. on whom the false Teachers would have layd the yoke were Disciples. but it doth not follow that they would have layd the yoke on none other than are there expressed, as when it is sayd, Christ would have gathered the children of Jerusalem, Matth. 23. 37. though none but the children of Jerusalem are there expressed, yet it follows not all are the children of Jerusalem whom he would have gathered. Nor doth that imaginary grosse absurdity follow which Mr. B. would fasten on this deniall of his major. For 1. there are in the Synods letter both v. 24. Condemning the false Teachers Doctrine, and v. 28. 29. laying no other burden on them to whom they wrot, plain pasages exempting old and yong from Circumcision, though v. 10. were left out. 2. Even in that, v. 10. Peter reproves their putting a yoke on the neck of the aged, he doth determine parents not bound to circumcise their children, and this is a conclusion against Circumcision of infants, as A canon against Priests marriage is a Law against their wives living with them; and the concluding against a practise in some upon a common reason, to others is a general prohibition, as the Apostles determination Acts 6. 2. is a determination against the like in others. But however, this is enough to answer Mr. Bs. Argument; and some perhaps would yield his minor, yet I deny it, and doubt not to shew that in the thing wherein he is most confident, in so much that in his Epistle before his Saints Everlasting Rest, he makes me with others play the Devil in accusing my own children as no Disciples, when God saith the contrary, (O utinam!) Acts 15. 10. he is an egregious Trifler.
To prove his minor, he thus argues, I prove it was the Infants also, thus, If it were Infants also whom the false Teachers would have had to be circumcised as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, then it was infants also on whom they would have laid the yoke; but it was infants also whom they would have had circumcised, &c. Therefore, &c. The Antecedent is undeniable. But it is the Consequence Mr. T. denieth; for he saith, It is not Circumcision as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, which was the yoke, but it was the Doctrine of those Teachers. But was Mr. T. of this minde when he wrote these words? Exam. p. 101.
Answ. 1. Should the Conclusion be granted him, that they were infants also whom the false Teachers would have had to be circumcised, &c. yet sith he grants, that they would have had the Fathers circumcised, they onelyonly may be meant by [Disciples] though Circumcision were yielded to be the yoke. 2. Circumcision is no way necessary, that I know, but as commanded, nor engaging to keep Moses Law, but as taught, and yielded to. And therefore I know not what sense Mr. Bs. words have, that it was infants also whom the false Teachers would have had to be circumcised as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, but one of these, they would have them circumcised, having this opinion, that it was necessary, and did engage, or that they taught Circumcision as a necessary command, and as engaging to Moses Law, and in this latter sense I should not have sayd, (if I did say it) that it is not Circumcision as necessary, and as engaging to Moses Law, which was the yoke, but it was the Doctrine of those Teachers; but rather have sayd, it was Circumcision as necessary, and engaging to Moses Law, which was the yoke, that is, the Doctrine of those Teachers. But because Mr. Bs. expression is du…ious, or nonsense, and that which he mainly bends himself to prove, is, that it was not the Doctrine which was the yoke to be put on Disciples, (for then there would have been no colour to expound [Disciples] of infants) but Circumcision in act, or acted on the flesh, though as a blinde he add those words, as necessary and engaging to Moses Law, therefore I denied the Consequence, as if those words were left out, which indeed he himself leaves out in the proof of his Antecedent, proving onelyonly they would have had them circumcised, without saying any thing, to prove they would have had them circumcised under this formal consideration or respect, as yielding to the necessity of it, and engaging themselves thereby to keep Moses Law. But if he put in those words in the minor, in this sense, I deny it also. As for the Consequence there is no proof brought for it to confirm it, but by overthrowing the reason I gave of denying it, so that had I given no reason of denying it▪ there had been brought no proof. But as yet I do not apprehend, though I had granted him, that Circumcision was the yoke, and not the Doctrine, (which I do not) that yet it would have followed, that if the false Teachers would have had the infants circumcised they were those also on whom they would have layd the yoke, for they might have attempted to lay the yoke of Circumcision on the Parents, and so the laying on of the yoke might be onelyonly the circumcising the Parents, though they would have also the infants circumcised. But it being true, that I gave that reason of my denial of Mr. Bs. Consequence, that I may the more abundantly shew the futility of his foolishly magnified dispute, I will engage with him even upon that point also. And to clear my meaning, it is true, Exam. pag. 101. I said, the yoke, Acts 15. 10. was Circumcision, as Mr. M. himself declared, pag. 39. of his Sermon, and all the legal Ceremonies, and the reason why I used that expression was, because I alleged Mr. Ms. words. But that I meant not Circumcision in act, or as acted on the flesh to be the yoke, but Circumcision in command, as commanded and imposed on the conscience, appears by the words following: if it be a privilege to be free from Circumcision it is a privilege to be free from any Ordinance in the room and use of it, it was the Ordinance then, I made the yoke. And my minde is expressed thus, pag. 135. The putting the yoke of Circumcision is not actual Circumcision in their flesh, for that they were able to bear for many Ages, but the necessity of it on mens consciences to salvation. In my Antidote, sect. 6. I deny it to be actual Circumcision, but somtimes call it the doctrine or opinion of the necessity of it. In my Book of Scandalizing I call it the Ordinances of the Jews. In my Praecursor, pag. 10. the doctrines and commands: but most plainly I express my self in my Praecursor, pag. 74. in my Answer to the 27th absurdity Mr. B. chargeth me with, pag. 208. of his Plain Scripture Proof, &c. where I make it the yoke of Doctrine, or the command of Circumcision, and shew, that not onelyonly Grotius, but also Pareus, Piscator, Diadati, the new Ames. Bell. Enerv. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 7. Th. 11. Protest. Acts 15. 10. Lex Mosis dicitur jugum importabile, & ChamierAnnot. so expressed it. This then is my constant judgment, 1. That the Yoke, Acts 15. 10. is not actual Circumcision or Circumcision in act, that is, as acted on the flesh, which alone serves for Mr. Bs. turn to provePanstr. Ca…h. tom. 3. l. 11. c. 15. spends a whole Chapter to prove against the Papists that the yoke there is the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law. Yea, Mr. B. himself Direct. 10. for peace, pag. …1. hath these words, They were therefore said to be in bondage to the Law, and the Law was said to be a yoke, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, Acts 15 10. Vide Pareum Bell. Cas…ig de Justific. l. 5. c 14. is the common Doctrine of Protestants to interpret the yoke of the whole Law, intolerable, because of the curse. infants Disciples, for no more would they have done to infants. 2. That the putting the yoke is teaching the necessity of it, or the command of God still binding their consciences, of which act the infants were not subjects recipient. 3. That the yoke as from the false Teachers was the Doctrine, or command of Circumcision and other Precepts of the Law, which sundry learned men in their notes on Matth. 11. 29. gather to be meant by the yoke, comparing these places with 1 John 5. 3. what is Matth. 11. 29. called Christs yoke, is 1 John 5. 3. called his Commandments, and doctrinal commands, or as the expression is, Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines, commands, are called Burdens, Matth. 23. Luke 11. 46. Rev. 2. 24. As it is taken passively, that is, to be received by the person yoked or taught is the opinion of the necessity of these unto salvation, or as Mr. B. himself after cals it the judgment of it. 4. That by the Disciples are meant the converted Christians of the Gentiles called the Brethren, v. 1. those that from the Gentiles turn to God, v. 19. The brethren of the Gentiles, v. 23. Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis, pag. 208. Complaint is made, Acts 15. 10. that those that urged the necessity of Circumcision put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; they urged it upon all in visible profession, and not upon regenerate ones alone. 5. That by their necks is meant not their flesh or skin, but their consciences. Let's now see what Mr. B. brings to prove the yoke Acts 15. 10. to be actual Circumcision, or in act, that is, acted on their flesh, and not the doctrine or command of Circumcision, or that the putting the yoke was in their flesh by cutting off the skin, not in their consciences by teaching.
1. Saith he, The Text saith so three times over, [that it was Circumcision as necessary and engaging to Moses Law, that was that yoke] v. 1. They taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved: and v. 5. They taught, it was needfull to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses: and v. 24. saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law.
Answ. There's not a word in either of the three Verses, that says so expresly, or by any good consequence, that the yoke v. 10. is Circumcision actual or in act, that is, acted or to be acted on the flesh. Mr. B. me thinks if he could have made any good inference from thence, for his Conclusion, should have formed it, being not ignorant that in my Antidote I bring these very verses and words to prove the contrary.
2. Saith he, It appears evidently from the same, v. 10. the yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear, that which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear, was the yoke there meant: but it was Circumcision as necessary, and engaging to keep the Law, and not the Doctrine of the false Apostles, which their fathers and they were not able to bear, therefore, &c. The major is in the Text; the minor is plain; 1. In that there is no mention in the Scripture of the Fathers being so burdened with that false doctrine; but that there is mention enough of their being burdened with the Law, and Circumcision as engaging to it. 2. It was true and 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 mean as to the Jews it was true, (for I will not now meddle with that great controversie whether the Gentiles were bound to keep Moses Law. I know not what Grotius, Franzius, &c. say on one side, and Cloppen burgius, and many more on the other.)
Answer. This passage I also allege against Mr. Bs. opinion, in my Antidote sect. 6. to prove that it is not Circumcision in act but in command or doctrine that is there meant by the yoke. But that we may determine the thing it is to be considered: 1. Who [We and our Father] are: 2. In what part or respect, and how it was intolerable. Doubtless by [we] the Apostle means the modern Jews, and by [our Fathers] the Jewes of former times. The intolerableness was not to their flesh, as Diodati speaks, for the labour in observing it, for though it be true that it was very irksom to observe Circumcision, and the Rites of Moses Law, yet Circumcision was possible to be born, especially by an infant, though, in the end and intent of the circumcisers it was done as necessary and engaging to keep Moses Law, yet the infants being not sensible thereof, it was not intolerable to them. And the Apostle Paul, Phil. 3. 6. speaks of himself, as touching the righteousness of the Law, blameless. But it was intolerable to their mindes and consciences, by reason of the imperfection of it to quiet the conscience, and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it in, saith Diodati locum. And therefore it was the Command and Doctrine that was intolerable to persons on whose consciences the Law was imposed, not the acting Circumcision, or Circumcision acted, which alone was put on infants, and consequently the yoke is not 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 onelyonly 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 [foreign, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 …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 onelyonly in fieri, but in facto esse, yet no way barely Circumcision acted on infants, and consequently they not Disciples, Acts 15. 10. which conceit is plainly overthrown by Mr. Bs. own Argument.
4. Saith Mr. B. [That which this Synod did decree against, and Peter here spoke against, that was the yoke here meant. But it was Circumcision as needfull, and engaging to keep the Law, which this Synod decreed against, and Peter here spoke against: therefore this Circumcision was the yoke. The minor is evident in the the three verses before named, and in the whole Chapter. Who dare say that this Synod did not decree against Circumcision and keeping the Law? And the major is as plain; And yet the very sum and strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say against this Text is here, which seems apparently to me to be but a meer cavilling with the plain Scripture.]
Answ. All this may be justly retorted. That which this Synod did decree against, and Peter here spake against, that was the yoke here meant: but it was not barely Circumcision as acted on infants, but Circumcision as taught, the command, doctrine, obligation, necessity of it to salvation, & opinion of that necessity urged on Disciples by teaching, which this Synod decreed against, and Peter here spoke against: therefore this doctrine, command, obligation, necessity, opinion of Circumcision and keeping the Law urged on persons taught was the yoke, & not barely Circumcision as acted on infants by parents, after the manner, and by virtue of Moses Law. The minor is evident in the three verses before named, and in the whole Chapter. Who dare say that this Synod did not decree against the command, doctrine, obligation, necessity, opinion of Circumcision, and and keeping the Law? And yet the very sum and strength of all Mr. B. hath to say against this Text is here, which seems apparently to me to be but a meer cavilling with the plain Scripture.
But he adds of me, [He saith that the Synod decreed against Circumcision but by consequence, and not expresly; and that the thing they directly and expresly decreed against, and Peter spoke against, was not the yoke it self, but the putting the yoke on them, which was the act of the false Teachers in Teaching.]
Answ. That which the Synod decreed against, and Peter spake against, I say was not barely Circumcision as acted on infants, no… Circumcision acted on infants immediately, but the command, doctrine, obligation, necessity and opinion of necessity of Circumcision, and keeping the Law to salvation, and consequently the infants Circumcision, which how or in what sense they are the yoke, and what the putting on of the yoke is, hath already been often shewed.
But saith Mr. B. [1. If this were granted, yet neither directly nor consequently do they decree against the circumcising of any but Disciples, and therefore infants must needs be part of those Disciples.]
Answer. That which Peter spoke against was the practise of the false Teachers, v. 10. The decree of the Synod was expresly, 1. a condemnation of the false Teachers practice, v. 24. 2. A release to Gentile Disciples of other commands called bardens save onelyonly some excepted, v. 28, 29. Acts 21. 25. And it is true that these decrees are directed onelyonly to the Disciples of the Gentiles for the freeing of their consciences. But it is false that they decree against the circumcising of none but Disciples. It is true the decree is not for the release of burdens to any but Disciples: But he that releaseth the burden that is the command of Circumcision to the Father who is a Disciple, doth withall by plain consequence free the childe from Circumcision, and yet the childe no Disciple.
2. Saith Mr. B. But the Text expresseth actual Circumcision three times over.
Answ. And it expresseth also keeping the Law, doth it therefore follow that the yoke, Acts 15. 10. is the actual keeping the Law, and that this might be put on infants.
3. Saith he, [It is undeniable in the 28, 29. v. that it was matter of their practice, as directly as the false Apostles teaching, and much more which was decreed against. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burdens than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols &c. Mark 1. their practice is the thing decreed upon expresly, and not the doctrine of the false Teacher (though that is implied) they do not say we do not decree, that they preach so no more, but that you abstain, &c.
Answ. 1. Mr. Bs. speeches seem to enterfer, when he saith, v. 28 29. It was the matter of their practice as directly as the false Apostles teaching, and much more, which was here decreed against, Doth he not confess that the false Apostles teaching was directly decreed against, though not so much? yet presently he bids, Mark, that it is not the Doctrine of the false Teachers that is decreed upon expresly (though that is implied) yet by [directly and expresly] he seems to mean the same. 2. What if v. …8, 29. decree not expresly against the Doctrine of the false Teachers, yet if it were implied it was decreed against. 3. If it were not expresly decreed upon, v. 28, 29. Is it not enough that it was expresly decreed against, v. 24.? 4. Though they do not say v. 28. we decree that they preach so no more, yet when they say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burdens than these necessary things, this is an express decree against the Doctrine of those false Teachers, v. 1. Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved, and v. 5. that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.
2. Saith Mr. B. This is it also which is here called [the burden] in the sense, no doubt, with that which before was called the yoke, no greater burden or yoke. And can any impartial mans conscience tell him that the onelyonly chief question here debated and determined was, whether the false Apostles should any more preach such doctrine. and not rather whether the Disciples ought to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.
Answ. If the burden and yoke be the same, then the yoke v. 10. is not that which was put on infants. For the burden v. 28. is called [Command] v. 24▪ and this was opposit to the false Teachers saying to command them to keep the Law of Moses v. 5. and by burdens elsewhere are meant Commands o… Doctrine, or Doctrinal Commands Matth. 23 4. Luke 11. 46. Rev…l. 2. 24. now Commands were not attempted to be put on infants who could not understand them. 2. If the practise were the yoke, then it was not on infants who were not urged to pract…e but to suffer, specially taking in what Mr. B. before said, it was the judgment and practice which the Doctrine did Teach which was the yoke. And to his questions I say, the false Teachers Doctrine and the Disciples practise were both in question, and both determined in the Synod, and therefore both decreed against, and so the doctrine is the yoke in respect of the yoakers, and the judgment and practise in respect of the yoaked.
4. Saith Mr. B. It was the Church of Antioch and not the false Teachers that sent to Ierusalem for resolution. 5. And it was to the brethren, and not to the false Teachers that the Synod did direct their letters, and decrees: therefore it was the Disciples practise that is more directly decreed against (or at least as much) than the Doctrine of the Teachers.
Answ. Be the Conclusion granted, yet the Doctrine is decreed against, and consequently is meant by the yoke v. 10. even according to Mr. Bs. argument, That which the Synod did decree against was the yoke here meant. But doth not Mr. B. in these words plainly intimate that Disciples are the same with brethren, to whom the letters were directed, which sure were not infants? It is true the Church of Antioch, and not the false Teachers, sent to Jerusalem for resolution, and that the letters were directed not to the false Teachers, but brethren called believers, Acts 21. 25. yet they sent about the false Teachers Doctrine, and the decree and speech were against that Doctrine: even as the decrees or Canons of Councils are against the doctrine of Heretikes though sent to the Churches. From all which I infer that Mr. Bs. reasoning is frivolous, and while he oppose…h i…, his own arguments prove, that the Doctrine of the false Teachers is the yoke. But he hath not yet done.
6. Saith he, If it were granted as Mr. T. would have it, that it is onelyonly putting on the yoke that is here expressely decreed against, and the yoke or practise it self but onelyonly by consequence, then he would make this Synod so weak as to leave the matter imperfect and obscure, which they were to determine expresly: and perhaps it might put him hard to it to prove that consequence: For it will not alway follow that what may not be taught may not be practised, as I could shew in several cases.
Answ. I hold the Synod to decree expressely against the yoke, understanding by it the Doctrine of the necessity of Circumcision, the obligation and opinion of its necessity, and the pu…ting of the yoke, that is the Teaching this Doctrine to Disciples, and by consequence against the Gentiles believing Parents practice of circumcising their Infants as of duty, nor do I know how any other way Mr. B. can gather it from the Epistle of the Synod than as I do; sure in all the Epistle I finde not any other way to prove Gentile believers are not bound to circumcise their children, but by urging the words v. 24. 28. 29 in which parents are not discharged of circumcising infants expresly in so many words, But by consequence. And yet the matter is not left imperfect or obscure, but there is an express determination against that which was the occasion of the Synod, to wit the Doctrine of the false Teachers, v. 24. nor is the consequence hard to infer, if the Apostles give no command to the Gentile parents to be circumcised▪ and to keep the Law, then parents are not tied to circumcise their infants, there being no necessity or duty to them who have no command or burden put on them. Mr. B. mistakes in conceivng I framed the consequence thus: What the false Apostles might not teach, the parents might not practice. And therefore though he could shew in many more cases than he can, that it will not alway follow that what may not be taught may not be practiced, the consequence as I frame it may be clear, & the determination of the Synod express and perfect.
But he adds: 7. And me thinks we may be allowed to prove baptism of infants by consequence: if this Synod assembled of purpose about Circumcision and the Law did yet leave them nothing but consequence against it.
Answ. I never said, that the Synod left nothing but consequence against Circumcision and the Law; nor did I disallow at any time the proving of infants baprism by consequence, but have often declared the contrary, though Mr. M. most unbrotherly charged me with it, pag. 3. of his Defence, but absolved me of it, pag. 205. as I shew in my Apology, sect. 11. and in my Praecursor, sect. 8. But having so long expected some proof by consequence for infant-baptism, and finding upon trial in so many Authors as have occurred nothing worth the name of a proof, I conclude there is no such thing, but that Paedobaptists, and none more than Mr. B. do onelyonly gull the world, and which is more to be detested, the godly, and of those, many that are teachers of others, with flourishes and shews, instead of proof, in so much as some who are of able parts magnifie his book about infants baptism as excellent, whether it be out of rashness, or for advantage sake to themselves, finde it upon strictest examination to be but a meer cheat.
But Mr. B. hath one string more to his Bowe. 5. Further, saith he, that it was Circumcision it self as needfull, and as engaging to Moses Law, which is here meant, is plain in Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3. No doubt either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with those or their companions teaching the same Doctrine, and therefore Paul there decideth the same cause; and mark what he cals the yoke, Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testifie again to every m…n that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to the whole Law. Is not he wilfull that yet will say, the yoke is onelyonly the Doctrine of the false. Teachers, and not Circumcision as engaging to keep the Law.
Answ. 1. Mr. B. before p. 17. said, that it is evident the doctrine is not the yoke; here when he saith, Is not he wilfull that yet will say that the yoke is onelyonly the doctrine of the false Teachers? He doth plainly intimate that he excepts not against the holding the yoke to be the Doctrine, but the holding it to be onelyonly the Doctrine of the false Teachers, which is me thinks to contradict himself, and to overthrow what he contends for, to wit, the yoke is that which was put on infants: but the Doctrine was not put on infants, and therefore if the Doctrine were in part the yoke, and this not put on infants, then the yoke was not put on infants, then it is not absurd for me to expound the yoke of the Doctrine of the false Teachers, and his Arguments against that Exposition are answered by his own concession. 2. If it be true, that either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with these false Teachers, Acts 15. 1. or their companions teaching the same Doctrine, then it is most false which Mr. B. teacheth, pag. 16. It was true, and 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 mea… 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 onelyonly infants are capable, no nor perhapsVide Dr. Field of the Church, l. 3 c. 1. (for that is disputed) all willing receiving of Circumcision as the Habassi…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.