Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 22

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2 · Section 22

p. 280SECT. 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 foreign, 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 foreign 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 p. 281to 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 inheri…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 n… through the Spirit waiting for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith, now persecuteth by words and deeds the Christian believer whether Jew or Gentile, who is born after the Spirit, that is who by the Spirit doth wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5 5. This supplement is cleared to be genuine from the scope and series of the Apostles Doctrine before, and deductions after and the constant exposition of interpreters. The Apostles Doctrine before is to disswade the Galatian Christians from affecting to be under the Law, v. 21. as the false p. 282teachers 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, embraci…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 ass…rting the estate of believers to be a state of freedom, v. 31. and hereupon exhorts cap. 5. 1. that they should st…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 vendi…ans: p. 283ita & nunc secundum carnem Israel, adversus minorem fratrem de gentibus populum Christianum, sustollitur, infl…tur, erig…tur. Consideremus insaniam Judaeorum: qui & Dominum interfecere, & Prophetas & Apostolos persecu…i sunt: & adversantur voluntat… Dei: & videbimus multo majores persecutiones, quas nos, etiam historiae docent, à Judaeis in Christianos quàm à gen…bus concitatas. Chrysost. foreign 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 …lesh) persecuted Isaac (born after the Spirit:) and so it is at this day. Pareus Comment. in Gen. 21. 12: Illusio Ismaelis adversus fra…rem significat, filios carnis persecutionem intent…re filiis promission…. P…scator schol. in locum. Ita & nunc carnalis Israel spiritua em persequitur. Grot. foreign] 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. Di…son. Cum enim in Abrahami famil…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 p. 284sayd, 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 no… born after the flesh, as it is expressed, v. 23. whence it is apparent that [being born after the flesh] doth onelyonly import the birth of the bond woman, generation by Abraham being not considered in this thing. 4. Mr. Bl. doth quite pervert the Apostles intent in taking to be born after the flesh to import an honour, and that it implies two things: 1. A birth of nature, a childe by lineal descent of such a father. 2. Outward Prerogatives that accompany such a birth, as his words are Vindic. Foed. cap. 40. whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement, takes it in the worser part, not as importing a descent from the father, but from the mother, and that mother a bond woman, and therefore the children servants or bond slaves by reason of their being born after the flesh. p. 285I 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 foreign, to answer, or to be in the same rank as the type with the Justitiaries that seek righteousness by the Law, which answers …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. B…. speaks, then and now both adverbs of time relate to Ishma…s jeers in person, then the speech of the p. 286Apostle 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. '…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 Gospelrighteousness, Scripture hath no word, or so much as any colour.'…

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 foreign, 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 p. 287and 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 H…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 su… modulo ac ped…, 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 st…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 absu…dity meant allegorically, as I have both sayd and demonstrated.

3. Sayth Mr. Bl. I have told him, that he makes two contradistinct species of birth, that both cannot be incident to one man, no more than a man be a brute beast, or a brute beast a bird; when it is plain that here is not a distribution of a genus into several species, but a distribution of a subject according to its several adjuncts, of which I give several instances.

Answ. I sayd in my Postscript, that I not orely make birth after the flesh and after the spirit contradistinct but also contrary. Contradistinct species may be incident to the same person, the same man may b… lo…g and broad, just and temperate, but not contrary, as white and black, just and unjust; [Birth] distributed into birth after the flesh and after the spirit must needs be a genus, or an equivocal term, it cannot be any subject either quod or quo, it being neither substance, quantity nor quality, but either action or passion, action as from the mother, passion as in the person born. p. 288Now actions though they are capable of various modifications, yet I do not think any Logicians call them subjects, or their several modifications adjuncts: but the substance whose action or passion it is, is the subject both of the action and passion, and their degrees and modifications, and these are adjuncts of that substance.

Mr. Bl. adds of me, He is pleased to deny that it is a distribution of the subject according to its adjuncts, and gives in the thing in dispute for a reason. Then the same person (he says) would be born after the spirit and after the flesh.

Answ. I give in this reason I confess: but I did not think this was in dispute, but out of all dispute▪ the Apostle making them two sons born of two mothers, v. 22. two several ways, v. 23. born to two several estates, v. 24, 25, 30. the one persecuting the other, and all these diversities are in the persons which are Types, and in their Antitypes; and the Apostle thence inferreth, that the one are not the other, v. 31. whence it follows, that birth after the flesh and spirit are not adjuncts of the same subject, but contrary attributes of several subjects.

Mr. Bl. proceeds▪ Presently he confesseth that Isaac was born after the flesh in the two senses I mention. And I am sure Mr. T. will not deny that Isaac was born after the Spirit, and then either truth is very absurd, or else Mr. T. hath quit me from absurdity; but then he says, It is untrue in the Apostles sense, for then he should be the childe of the bond-mayd, not by promise, a persecutor to be cast out, not to inherit. To which I answer, that my sense is the Apostles sense, and Mr. T. his sense far from it: For though the Apostle doth indeed allegorize the Text, as Arias Montanus renders it, quae sunt allegorizata, yet the Apostle in the parallel looks at the letter of the history, as I have shewen, not at the Allegory, which Mr. T. had not a face to oppose, either he must deny now and then to be Adverbs of time, or else he must allow of my interpretation, Ishmael did never as a Justitiary prosecute Isaac under the notion of a follower of Evangelical righteousness.

Answ. I do confess Isaac was born after the Spirit, and that he was born after the flesh in the two senses of Mr. Bl. for one born of natural parents Abraham was his natural father, and in the p. 289sense more common in Scripture for the outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth (though I do not find the phrase, born after the flesh in this later sense in Scripture, not Phil. 3. 4. Rom. 9. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 16. where the term [flesh] is used and yet I think onelyonly in the first place importing prerogatives, no where the phrase born after the flesh in that sense) yet not in the Apostles sense, in which to be born after the flesh notes birth without consideration of the father as by a mother that was a bond-woman, and so no prerogative is intimated in it but a debasement or deminution and so Isaac was not born after the flesh, that is not of a bondwoman, by an usual way of generation, but of the free-woman by Divine virtue according to a promise to her when past childebearing in the course of nature. And this to be the Apostles sense is proved before, and Mr. Bls. sense proved very absurd, and his reasons for it answered.

Yet he adds of me. After some concessions in full contradiction to himself, I deny not (saith he) but legal Justitiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house, though the Apostle make the parallel onelyonly in the casting out, that they might not inherit, Apolog. pag. 114.) he saith, if Mr. Bl. would gather anything hence for himself, he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be of the visible Church by virtue of being born after the flesh as their prerogative, which is as wide from the Apostles meaning, as the East is from the West, as far as the East is from the Sun-rising, he should have said, that is the thing that I have proved, and do maintain, I laid down by way of Syllogism and have an Apology instead of an answer. Mr. T. hath a notable faculty in begging of the question in agitation. The Apostles full scope (I confess) is another thing; but I still affirm that he occasionally expresses that from whence this is evidently deduced, namely a distinction of births literal not allegorical, which Mr. T. never will be able with any reason to deny, till it can be proved that then and now look at the Allegory, not at the History; I can prove from Luke 13. 16. that the Israelitish women are daughters of Abraham, though it is plain that another thing there was Christs main intention.

Answ. Mr. Bl. continues to write at random. There's no shew of contradiction much less a full contradiction in my words to p. 290my self. This may be true, Justitiaries may be in the visible Church, and this also, To be born after the flesh or to be a Justitiary doth not import a prerogative giving title to be of the visible Church, my speech was right, and needs not to be mended by any of Mr. Bls. fl…ts. He hath a full answer to his Syllogism before, and so he had before in the Apology, the strength of his arguing being thus expressed here, The consequence is plain, birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church interest, which is denied to be proved from Galat. 4. 26. and was denied before. And though being an answerer I need not prove, and therefore begging the question is charged on me frivolously by Mr. Bl. For he only begs the question who takes for granted that which he should prove (which is Mr. Bls. fault who useth to d…ctate when he should prove) yet did I prove that the Apostles scope is not onelyonly another thing than the asserting of a prerogative of visible Church-membership by being born after the flesh, that is, being the childe of a believer by natural generation, but that he deduceth their casting out of the Church from it, and that the birth after the flesh is taken in the worser part as that which bringeth bondage not Church estate or Christian liberty, nor doth birth after the flesh respect the descent from a believer but the bond-woman, and that this birth is in the Antitype allego…ical, and yet the Adverbs then and now are Adverbs of time, and a history is related in both parts of the 29. v. of Gal. 4. Generally interpreters take the words, even so it is now, as meant of the Jews, which cannot be true literally: for they were not born after the flesh, that is, of bond-women, but of free-women, which were true Israelites, or daughters of Abraham, as Mr. B. here confesseth.

Mr. Bl. proceeds. Secondly, he sayth that I say, such are in the bosom of the Church, when the Apostle sayth, they persecute the Church, and are cast out: I desire the Reader to consider, if this had any truth in it; whether it hold with greater strength for me or him? They are cast out, and therefore they were in, is my Argument: they are cast out, and therefore were never in, sayth Mr. T. 2. The Apostle sayth no such thing, that they are cast out; Ishmael was in the family when he persecuted, though afterwards he was cast out of the family; these are in the Church, though in case they continue persecution, they shall p. 291in fine be cast out; now in present they have a being in it.

Answ. It is true that this was my second Exception against his gross perverting of the Apostles words, [even so it is now] as if the meaning were, that by virtue of being born after the flesh, some infants, to wit, those that are born of a believing parent are in the bosom of the Church, when the Apostle sayth, 1. They persecute, which cannot be meant of infants. 2. In that they are born after the flesh they persecute the Church, therefore he ascribes no privilege to them, as accruing to them, by the birth after the flesh, but a cursed practice. 3. That they persecute the Church, therefore while born after the flesh they were not in the bosom of the Church, that is the Church Christian visible. 4. That they are cast out, therefore not in the Church. To the two first of these nothing is answered, the consequence of the third is denied, he supposeth they did persecute the Church, and yet remained in; which is most palpably false: For this being apparently meant of the unbelieving Jews that sought righteousness by the Law, and acknowledged so by Interpreters, it is notoriously false, that they were in the bosom of the Christian Church, while they did persecute the Church; yea, Saul himself was not after his conversion taken in presently to communion with the Disciples at Jerusalem, till they knew that he ceased to be a persecutor, Acts 9. 26. so that the words [even so it is now] expounded as Mr. Bls. words intimate [even so now by virtue of being born after the flesh, that is, by natural generation born of a believing parent, there are some even infants that are in the bosom of the Christian visible Church, as members of it, and remaining in it, do persecute the Church] are so false, and the Exposition so unsavoury, that it is a wonder to me, that neither Mr. Bl. nor the Prefacers to his Book take care to have it left out. That which Mr. Bl. answers to the fourth thing in this exception is of like stamp. 1. He sayth, It follows not they were cast out, therefore never in. But my Argument is this, they were by reason of their being born after the flesh cast out, therefore not for this reason in the bosom of the Church. 2. That it follows, they are cast out, therefore they were in: which consequence I deny, being understood of the Church Christian visible, and the particular persons who are sayd to be cast out: for they are sayd to be cast out not from what they had, but from what they might have had p. 292or others had; as Matth. 8. 12. it is sayd, The children of the Kingdom shall be east out (of the Kingdom of Heaven, v. 11. in which others were, and they not) into outer darkness. He sayth also, The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out, but mentions a command of casting them out. To which I replied, As if Gods dictum were not factum: if they were not cast out, why doth the Apostle allege that Text? My meaning was, Gods speech of the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael was not a bare command, but such as included a sentence and decree of God, which he took course to execute, and that the Apostle allegeth the Text not to prove a duty, but to shew an event, or fact of God. For as the Apostle allegeth it, the casting out is of the legal covenant, and the children of it those that desired to be under the Law, and their casting out is their rejecting from the inheritance of righteousness and being Gods people: now this could not be any mans duty but Gods act determining and accordingly accomplishing this sentence, that righteousness shall not be by the Law, nor Justitiaries his people, and therefore it is most absurd in Mr. Bl. to determine, that some by virtue of being born after the flesh have a right to be in the bosom of the Church Christian, when the Apostle determines they are for this reason rejected or cast out.

I had, thirdly, excepted against Mr. Bl. as making those that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed, wherein he joyns with Arminius in calling them Abrahams seed who sought justice in the Law. Mr. Bl. Vindic. Foed cap. 40. sayth, I joyn with Arminius, and that he follows Mr. Bayne. For sayth he, I interpret it of a natural seed that inherit outward privileges, and never reach the birth of the spirit, so Mr. Baines interprets it, the children of the flesh here, are those onelyonly who in course of nature came from Abraham, Baines on Ephes. 1. pag. 140. quarto.

Answ. It is true Mr. Bayne hath those words, but yet he excepteth pag. 139. against Arminius as I do for calling legal justitiaries (who are meant by [they that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.]) Abrahams seed. For there he thus speaks. Beside that, though the sons of the flesh may signifie such, who carnally, not spiritually conceive of the Law, yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken. It is true that Mr. Baines so interprets the term [children of the flesh, Rom. 9. 8.] as Mr. Bl. p. 293hath cited him, which place he meant by [here] but not the te…m [he that is born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] yea pag. 138. he saith, For though children of the flesh in some other Scripture (meaning Gal. 4. 29.) doth note out justitiaries, seeking salvation in the Law, yet here (Rom. 9. 8.) the literal meaning is to be taken; a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all, that I know, interpreters besides himself [they that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now] do note legal Justitiaries who are there called the children of the bond-woman, not called Abrahams seed (for those he had determined before to be those of the faith, Gal. 3. 9. Christs v. 29.) nor to inherit, but cast out, he on the contrary, makes them Abrahams seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9. And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh. Whereas the term [born after the flesh] is taken in the worser part precisely from the birth from the bond-woman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege, but a privation of privilege. As for Mr. Bayn, though he interpret [children of the flesh, Rom. 9. 8.] of those onelyonly who in course of nature came from Abraham, and proves there that it notes not legal Justitiaries, because it is applyed to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil. Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things. 1. In that he saith, Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges, whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret [children of the flesh, Rom. 9. 8.] of a natural seed, yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges. 2. That he makes his exposition of [children of the flesh, Rom. 9. 8] to be his exposition of [those that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] whereas he expresly saith, though children of the flesh in some other Scripture (which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justitiaries, seeking salvation in the Law. I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not onelyonly a Type of Justitiaries, Gal. 4. 23, 29. but also Rom. 9. 7, 8 9. and Isaac a Type of believers in both places, and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justitiaries p. 294and believers, but of uncalled and called, non-elect and elect, and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brethre… from the later; which to me seems not right: for me thinks the words foreign, have this sense, that the thing he had sayd before did not onelyonly appear in Ishmael and Isaac, but also more fully in Esau and Jacob, which me thinks imports, that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob, which he did by Ishmael and Isaac, and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10, to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not onelyonly so but also, they being connexive particles, and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis. But Cameron and all others I know, understand by [those that are born after the flesh, Gal. 4, 29.] legal Justitiaries. Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism, &c. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh (Gal. 4. 29.) the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature: but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law; which as it bego… by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength, (or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed) so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation.

My fourth exception was, whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants; to be born of Hagar, that is, to be in the covenant of works, should give a childe interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this, If Mr. Tombs his Gloss (borrowed from Arminius) must stand for the sense of the place, that to be born of the flesh, is to be under the covenant of works, then it will hardly be avoided; but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature, according to the flesh, then the Argument is valid.

Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term [born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] than I do, is shewed above: yet if it were true, that he did as Mr. Bl. mis-allegeth him interpret [born after the flesh, Gal. 4. 29.] of those onelyonly who in course of nature came from Abraham, yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9. 8. he conceived this term [children of the flesh] to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges, and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid, though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him. And for that he sayth, I borrow p. 295my Gloss from Arminius: I answer, I have shewed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words, and have the concurrent judgment of many Divines of best note, to whom it is no disparagement, that in this Arminius joyns.