say Be it subsequent directory or what ever else he will call it Mr. Blake might easily perceive by my words Examen pag. 28 29. and elsewhere I take the word institution for any appointment by precept command or example approved either express or gathered by good consequence if any of these wayes an institution of Infant-baptism can be shewed out of the New Testament without the analogy of Circumcision I should not make any doubt of it and therefore it is but unnecessary wrangling which he useth about the word institution Let him shew any subsequent directory for Infant-baptism as is for Infant-circumcision without the analogy of Circumcision and I am satisfied Yet to shew the vanity of his speeches and arguings I shall a little scanne them He denies an institution of Infant-circumcision Gent. 17. 10. he saith it is but asubsequent directory for the particular day Answ. Ausonius Popma de differ verborum l. 3. Institutines sunt praecepia quibus docentur homines atque instituuntur In this general acception a directory is an institution But were it taken strictly for a command establishing that â—ite surely v. 12. not onely the particular day was appointed but the person also to wit the Infant of eight dayes old among Abrahams people and all the verses 10 11 12 13 14. together are termed sanctio circumcisionis by Pareus in his Commentary But we find not the institution with restriction to Infancy saith Mr. Blake Ans. True nor did I ever say the institution was restrained to Infancy or that there was an institution only for children of eight dayes nor do I deny that the precept Gen. 17. 10. was more general than that it should be restrained to the eighth day yet v. 12. the circumcising of infants was limited to the eighth day Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part 1. pag. 135. For some particular occasions of worship God was pleased of old to determine some time exclusively as the eighth day from the birth of a child for Circumcision and the eighth day for the sacrificing of the firstling males of cattel neither sooner nor later Nor do there want those among Protestant Divines who make it unlawful to do it before or after but will-worship except in cases of necessity as in the wilderness c. in which case the rule holds God will have mercy and not sacrifice and the thing might be done afterwards as in the circumcision of those who were born in time of their travel in the wilderness But to have altered the time of a mans own motion without such necessity had been will-worship as it was charged on Jeroboam 1 Kings 12. 33. that he sacrificed in the moneth he had devised of his own heart What Mr. Blake saith there is in the New-Testament-times an institution of baptism for all in Covenant without difference of age or sex is false except by being in Covenant he understand not being in Covenant by Gods promise onely or others faith or undertaking for them but by their own act of Covenanting that is engaging themselves in their own persons by their own act to be Christs Disciples or believers in him there being no institution in the New Testament times of baptizing any other than Disciples or Believers in Christ. Mr. Blake adds I instanced in the Apostles argument from analogy for Ministers maintenance 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. Mr. Tombs answers The Apostle doth not by bare analogy conclude Ministers maintenance but from the Lords ordinance He does conlude it then by his confession from analogy though not barely from analogy Neither have any one of Mr. T s Antagonists concluded Infant baptism barely from analogy of Circumcision There are other arguments which wait for his answer so that this instance stands Answ. My Confession was not that the Apostle argued from any such analogy as Paedobaptists conclude Infants-baptism from to wit the rule of Circumcision thus Circumcision was appointed to Infants in Covenant therefore Baptism is appointed to Infants in Covenant they having the same main and principle end to seal the Covenant of grace which is Mr. Blakes own arguing which is from a ceremonial rite of the Old Testament to a ceremonial rite of the New without precept or example of Christ or his Apostles For 1. The Apostles argument 1 Cor. 9. 9. seems not to me to be from analogy but a testimony explained So Mr. Dicson in his Com. Arg. 3. a testimonto legis de pabulo bovi trituranti dando quod ostendit dictum esse in gratiam omnium laborantium in aliorum usum potissimum in ministerio Diodati The end of Gods Law is not to shew how cattel should be fed but to command equity to be used in just rewarding of those who labour for us Mr. Blake himself vindic foederis pag. 406. Thirdly he argues from the command of the Law 2. If it be from any analogy it is in things that have a parity of equity and so it is in moral things which are perpetual not in meer positive rites 3. It is an analogy which the Apostle delivered to us not analogy made by men not guided by an infallible spirit as is the inference of Paedobaptism from Circumcision and therefore is not of force to oblige mens consciences I have shewed before that the Paedobaptists main argument is barely from such analogy and for other arguments waiting for mine answer either they are answered before sufficiently oâ— God assisting will have answer in this Review Mr. Blakes arguments vindic foede ch 43. sect 1. require no longer answer The first is the same with Mr. Bs. second And the Major is to be denied if by unless order be given to the contrary be meant of order given to the contrary in formal positive terms such as this Thou shalt nor baptize Infants If it be meant of order given to the contrary either in express formal prohibitive terms or equipollent the Minor is to be denied In the second the Major is to be denyed and in like manner the third distinguishing the term holy In the fourth both the Major and the Minor and so likewise the fifth explaining the term church privileges In the sixth the Major is to be denyed if understood of the invisible Kingdom of God only if of the visible the Minor is to be denyed In the other two additionals the Major if universal is to be denyed and the Minor is true of infants of unbelievers as well as believers And for the last Argument the matter is as easily answered as the form For the Major Those that are to be saved are to be added to the Church by baptism Act 2. 47. is to be limited by the text v. 41. thus when they willingly receive the word If no larger answer be given Mr. B. to these arguments yet this will be enough to shew they are without much difficulty answerable Mr. Bs. proofs likewise God assisting shall have fuller answer than they deserve though were it not for his
old man that hath not filled his daies For the chiâ—â— shall dy an hundred years old but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed How shall the child dy as at an hundred years old but that he is so well instructed and inlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of enterance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old Ans. 1. Were M. Cottons paraphrase granted yet the conclusion followes not thence that therefore infants are disciples to be baptized according to Mat. 28. 19. or as he speaks children of the Church For to be so well instructed and enlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old may agree by extraordinary inspiration to one that is only of the invisible Church and not of the visible Church as disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. 2. Mr. Cotton when he saith how shall the child by as at an hundred years old doth slâ—ly intimate as if as were in the text whereas it is not so but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the child or boy shall dy an hundred years old or the son of an hundred years Which without any allegory hath a plain sense as the New Annotations expresse it He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he dy Which was accomplished in the return from the captivity according to the prophecy of Zechariah ch 8. Vide Grotius 4. and therefore we need not run to any allego annot in Zeâ— rical interpretation nor refer it to the times of 8. 4. the Messiah either after the resurrection or afore of which Hieronym in Locum 3. Were an allegory allowed yet not only in Hierom but also in Calvin Piscator and others there are vaâ—iety of senses different from Mr. Cotton so that in alleging these texts he trifled more than became so grave a man But he goes on thus The Apostle Peter reckoneth infants of the Church for disciples Acts 15. 10. If the infants of the Church had not been disciples the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have â—ut that ordinance upon them Answ. 1. infants of the Church is a phrase the Scripture useth not and iâ— serves only to possess the unwary reader with this conceit as if the children of believers inchurched as they speak were children of the Church whereas none is a child of the Church till taught the Gospel and made a believer 2. It is untruly suggested as if the false Apostles pretended power to circumcise infants of Christian disciples from this chat the infants were disciples But ver 1. 5. shew plainly that they alleged that the Gentile disciples were tied to observe the law of Moses and so to be circumcised both they and their children But saith he Peter acknowlegeth them disciples but the yoke of circumcision was too heavy for them as drawing upon them the yoke of the Ceremonial Law Answ. There is not a word of Peter acknowledging the infants disciples but the believing parents nor is the yoke of circumcision said to be too heavy for them now as if it were not so 〈◊〉 but it 〈…〉 such as neither the Apostles nor their Fathers Were able to bear much less Gentiles But 〈…〉 Christ Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. 〈…〉 is the Kingdome of God which argueth that even little children are members of the Church here Answ. It is proved in my Postscriptâ— 20. that Matth. 19. 14. the Kingdom of heaven in Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. the Kingdom of God is meant of the Kingdom of Glory But it follows not that therefore infants are members of the Church here many belonging to the invisible Church which belong not to the visible and vice versâ as abortives still born infants converts at the point of death c. are of the Kingdom of Glory who are never members of the visible Church here But saith he Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child to wit as a little child receiveth it for so much the Grammer construction requireth he shall in no wise enter therein Answ. It is untrue that the Grammar construction requireth that it should be understood thus that a little child receiveth the Kingdom of God but only this is meant that none shall enter into the Kingdom of God but such as have such an humble mind free from ambition as a little child hath as our Lord himself expounds it Mat. 18. 3 4. But saith he Christs testimony of them and his carriage towards them shew that little children born in the Church are accounted disciples of Christ and therefore commanded to be baptized with their believing parents Answ. Mr. Cotton himself confesseth that it doth not appear that their Fathers who brought them were baptized themselves how are they then said to be children born in the Church or to be baptized according to rule wherefore his own words shew it to be uncertainly and therefore insufficiently alleged to prove that the infants of believers are among the blessed ones of Christ such as of whom his Church and and Kingdom consisteth and so come under the fellowship of his disciples whom Christ commandeth to be baptized And in very truth in that there is nothing apparent whether the parents brought them or others whether the parents were disciples or not nor is any thing at all ascribed to the parents but to Christs indulgence in this action and it appears Christ did not command them to be baptized nor spake any thing as intituling them to discipleship and baptism though he said Of such is the Kingdom of God this text is not only impertinently brought to prove the discipleship and baptizability of believers infants but also makes to the contrary that infants are not disciples nor baptizable sith if they had been so Christ would have so declared on this occasion which was opportune for it But there is yet another argument in that chapter of Mr. Cottons and it is to this effect That the Commission Mat. 28. 19. appoints believing parents to be baptized and would infer that in Gods account and in Scripture phrase parents themselves are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized Answ. But will any man believe Mr. Cotton in this that in Scripture phrase parents are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized Scripture speaks of thousands baptized and mentions not the baptizing of any of their children under that relation as their children shall we believe Mr. Cotton that those phrases of Scripture that say they were baptized speak false and that they were not reputed of God to be baptized because there is no mention of their childrens baptism many believers were baptized their children being infidels Mat. 10. 35. were not the parents reputed in Gods account baptized because the children were against it But let us hear Mr. Cottons goodly proof in his own words Surely saith he in the old
as I have alleged above 4. Saith Mr. B. Or if all this be not enough yet look further where God himself tels you the reason why he cals them his servants who knows better than Mr. T. They are my servants which I brought out of Egypt c. Gods interest and mercifull choice of them and separation to himself is the reason When God cals us his servants it oftnâ—r signifieth the honor and privileges of that relation which in mercy he cals us to than any service we do him therein Are the Heavens Gods servants because he brought them out of Egypt and separated them to himself as a peculiar People Answ. Mr. B. is a strange man most shamefully dealing with me who suggests to the world of me as if I took no notice of that in the Text which in my Sermon as it is printed by himself pag. 181. was observed in the first place with advice to my hearers to mark it and urged it to that end that I might shew this was peculiar to the Hebrew children and therefore impertinently brought by Mr. B. to prove our infants Gods servants as there it is meant much less as God 's servants is a term equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. all which he seems not to take notice of but in stead thereof after a dictate or two without proof he puts to me this frivolous question Are the Heavens Gods servants because he brought them out of Egypt and separated them to himself as a peculiar people To which I answer no but what then cannot therefore the Heavens be said to be Gods servants passively that is at Gods dispose because they were not brought out of Egypt as the infants Levit. 25. 41. The reason is given there in respect of the subject why they were Gods servants when other people were not not on the part of the predicate as if none were servants but they that were brought out of Egypt Nebuchadnezzar is called Gods servant Jer. 43. 10. for going into Egypt there executing Gods will on the Egyptians though he had no intention of doing any thing for God 5. Saith Mr. B. yet if all this be not enough he that will see may be convinced from this The Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in a sense peculiar as chosen and separated from all other the Gentiles at age were not so Gods servants as the Jews infants were If God call these infants his servants in no other sense than the Heavens and the earth then it seems in the year of Jubilee men must release the earth from its service to them But Mr. T. knows that even the Gentile servants that were actively so were not to be released in the year of Jubilee and therefore the Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in another sense than the Heavens or the heathens either even as the chosen separated people of God and members of his family or else how could it be a reason for releasing them in the year of Jubilee any more than for releasing any other But no Scripture can be so plain but a man that hath a minde so disposed may finde some words of contradiction Answ. It is true and Mr. Bs. cavils about this Text apparently preve it But this with all the rest is not enough to convince me that the infants of the Jews are called Gods servants actively as the term Gods servant is equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. though I would see it yet I cannot no not by Mr. Bs. spectacles even by this last reason I confess that the Jews infants were Gods servants in a peculiar manner other than the Gentiles at years yea though godly as Cornelius Acts 10. 2. that God for this reason required their release from bondage at the Jubilee and yet why it should follow that if the Earth be called Gods servant passively as the Jews infants it must be released by men from service at the year of Jubilee I see not If it were formed into an Argument it would rest on this or the like Proposition They to whom the same thing is predicated in the same sense must have all other things predicated on them alike which is so absurd a thing that me thinks Mr. B. should disclaim it and yet his reason turns on that hinge To shew its absurdity Magistrates are called Gods Jehovah is called God in one sense in respect of rule else the term God should signifie nothing common to both Doth it therefore follow that what is said of Magistrates must be said of Jehovah that he must dy like men or else the term God cannot predicate on both in the same sense in which God is taken for one that rules This and such like mistakes of Mr. B. even then when he runs with full curreer shew his heedlesness and overliness in handling controversies which require a man of more insight in the meaning of the Scripture and more circumspect in observing the consequents on his sayings and reasonings than I finde him But I follow him not doubting to overtake him in long tunning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT XV. That Infants are not proved to be Christs Disciples from being Subjects to Christ Christians belonging to Christ Luke 9. 47 48. Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. THe sum of the next Argument is Infants are capable of being Subjects of Chrsts kingdom therefore of being his Disciples The reason of the Consequence is that Christs Church is as properly called his Kingdom as his School all Subjects of Christ in his visible Kingdom are Christians all Christians Disciples according to Acts 11. 26. Infants are capable of being Subjects in any Kingdom on Earth nothing can be shewed to prove them uncapable they were actually Subjects of Christs Kingdom before his coming in the flesh To all which I answer It s enough to deny the consequence sith infants may be subjects which imports onely somthing passive whereas Disciple imports action which agrees not to infants But I distinguish subjects of Christs Kingdom may be so called from active or passive subjection visibly or invisibly by extraordinary or ordinary operation I deny infants to be subjects of Christs Kingdom actively visibly by ordinary operation through Preaching the word in which sense alone the term subject of Christs Kingdom is equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. and in which sense alone the consequence is true Though in common speech arising from the fond conceit as if baby-sprinkling made them Christians infants are called Christians yet in Scripture none are called Christians till they believe Christiani non naseuâ—â—ur sed fiunt Our Infants are children of Christians But not themselves Christians till they beleive in Christ. Acts 11. 26. is so far from proving infants called Christians or Disciples that both v. 26. 29. prove the contrary as was shewed above Though infants be reckoned as parts of human Kingdoms yet it follows not they are parts of Christs visible Kingdom or Church For then
natural fools yea the mostungodly professed unbelievers must be subjects of Christs visible Kingdom or Church because such are subjects of human kingdoms I have seen Ephes. 5. 24. and see nothing there for Mr. Bs. purpose but against him there being no subjection there meant but what is willing which infants have not except by extraordinary operation unknown Infants whether of believers or unbelievers are capable of being Christs subjects passively or actively by extraordinary secret invisible and unknown operation but not actively visibly by ordinary means for want of the use of reason This consequence will never be proved by Mr. B. Infants were members of the Jewish Church therefore visible Church members of the Christian Church To this argument Infants were Disciples in the Jewish Church Ergo God will shew the like mercy now I answer by denying his antecedent which he would prove from John 9. 28. we are Moses Disciples in opposition to Jesus Disciples But infants were Moses his Disciples This proposition I deny and Mr. B. hath brought nothing to prove it The Text mentions none as Moses Disciples but persons of years and therefore there 's no need of further answer to his argument 3. My third argument saith Mr. B. to prove some infants are Disciples is this from Christs own words If Christ would have some children received as Disciples then they are Disciples But Christ would have some such received as Disciples Therefore some such are Disciples All the question is of the antecedent and that is plain in Luke 9. 47 48. compared which Matth. 18. 5. and Mark 9. 41. He that receiveth this childe in my name receiveth me Here observe 1. It was the childe himself that Christ would have received 2. He would have him received in his name now that can mean no less than as a Disciple when they are baptized it is into his Name And that which in Luke is called receiving in Christs name is expressed in Mark one that belongeth to Christ and in Matthew in the name of a Disciple though some of these places speak of infants some of others yet compared they plainly tell you this that to receive in Christs Name and as belonging to Christ and as a Disciple of Christ in Christs language is all one for they plainly express the same thing intended in all So that Christ hath encouraged me to receive children in his Name Luke 9. 47. And he expoundeth it to me that this is to receive them as belonging to him and as Disciples I know some frivolous answers are made to this but they are not worth the standing on Mr. Blakes Argument hence remaineth as good as unanswered Answ. What Mr. Blake alleged in his Birth privilege p. 21 about these Texts was answered in my Examen pag. 134. and what he replied in his Answer to my Letter cap. 11. sect 5. was refelled in my Postscript pag. 145 146 all which I have reviewed with what Mr. Blake refers to in his Repulse of Mr. Blackwood pag. 16 17 18 19 20. and do not finde wherein my answer in my Postscript is deficient and therefore see no reason to be moved by Mr. Bs. vain talk that Mr. Blakes Argument hence remains as good as unanswered and do conceive it more abundantly answered than such a far-fetch'd argument deserved Yet Mr. B. brings it again into the field and Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis pag. 414. says he will forbear to make any rejoynder to the Reply of my Apology pag. 145. because Mr. B. hath here done it for him Now what saith Mr. B. He saith I know some frrivolous answers are made to this but they are not worth the standing on To which I reply if the Answers be more frivolous than the Argument they are not indeed worth standing on But let us see what kinde of Argument it is 1. Mr. B. should have concluded that Some Infants are Disciples and he concludes that Some Children are Disciples or else he means by some such in the minor and conclusion others than by some Children in the major now some Infants and some Children are not all one 2. The phrase in the middle term received as Disciples may be understood two ways 1. thus that Christ would have them received as being Disciples and in this sense I grant the Consequence but deny the minor understood of some infants 2. That he would have them received with such tenderness and love as is given to Disciples though they be not Disciples And in this sense I might grant the minor and deny the Consequence of the major though I think the minor is not true in that sense And to Mr. Bs. proof of this I say 1. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 47. doth not note an infant always For Jairus his Daughter though twelve years old is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little childe Mark 5. 41 42. And yet that age might be a patern of humility seldom are children of that age ambitious though they be impatient And that the little childe Matth. 18. 2. was not an infant but a person of some years is made probable in that Christ is said to call him and to set him or make him stand in the midst of them 2. Beza saith Perhaps it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a little childe So the Syriack Interpreter reades and it is very probable by comparing it with Matth. 18. 5. where the words of Christ are related and there it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one such little childe and Mark 9. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of such children 3. But if the reading be allowed as the Copies now have it yet it is not unusual that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as on the other side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 2 Cor. 2. 6. all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in the same Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 26. is not meant of one particular person but of one so qualified and in like manner 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from these turn away that is as our Translators well render it from such turn away and v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered of this sort There are more of the like 2 Thess. 3. 14. 2 John 7. 1 John 2. 22. Luke 8. 14 15 21 c. So Grotius in Luc. 9. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut apud Matthaeum quomodo hic Syrus interpretatur And this may be confirmed by reason thus If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 48. must be expounded of this little childe then the speech of Christ is to be understood onely of that one individual little childe and no other for in that sense it is a Pronoun demonstrative and so notes a demonstrative individual as Logicians speak and so it shall note not onely the childe himself as Mr. B. observes but even that
baptized afore they are believers or repenting persons which is absurd and contrary to the Scripture Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. c. and contrary to the order of Christ that persons should be made Disciples afore they were baptized Matth. 28 19. 3. Because it is altogether inexplicable how the use of water can be a cause either principal or instrumental to work a new birth or inward change on the soul If it be sayd that it is by virtue of Gods promise it is meet that promise should be shewed that at by or upon the use of baptism God hath promised to regenerate persons That it is a sign of regeneration will not be I suppose denyed for it is made the sign of repentance which is all one with regeneration and therefore called the baptism of repentance Acts 19. 4. because as Beza on v. 3. baptism was symbolum resipiscentiae the token of repentance And so in like manner it was the sign of faith and therefore the Apostle Gal. 3. 27. saith That as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ that is had by the sign of baptism testified their putting on Christ by faith And in this sense it is termed the washing of regeneration if baptism be meant by it Tit. 3. 5. because by that washing the person baptized testifies his regeneration And Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death that is we by being under water testifie our dying to sin conformably to Christs death and burial And in this sense Paul is bid Acts 22. 16. to wash away his sins that is by baptism to testifie his purging from his sins And so Christ is said to sanctifie and cleanse his Church with washing of water Ephes. 5. 26. that is as Beza Annot in locum as representing what he entirely doth effect within Mr. Iames Cranford in his Epistle to Mr. Thomas Bedford printed at the end of the Friendly Accommodation between Mr. Bedford and Mr. Baxter saith that he conceives the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis in which he is more confirmed by what I answered once to an Argument drawn by him from Ephes. 5. from the efficacy of baptism to inforce the baptizing of infants that if that Tenent could be clearly proved I would no longer oppose that practice Concerning which I say I remember not all that passed from me in the Dispute he mentions I did think that which I put down in my Exerciâ— sect 11. had been his Argument But this I still say that could it be clearly proved that Christ ever appointed baptism of water taken severedly from the preaching of the Word to be the cause of Regeneration or that God had assured that by outward baptism with water he would confer regenerating grace to an infant I should not oppose the practice of Paedobaptism What Mr. Bedford hath produced for the efficacy of baptism hath been answered by Mr. Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture c. Nor doth it appear to me that Mr. B. is of his minde notwithstanding what Letters have past between them now printed and the syncretism yielded to in the printing of the Friendly Accommodation and leaving out the Appendix Dr. Burges his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration hath been freely censured by many Dr. Ieremiah Taylour in his Discourse of baptism hath like an Orator rather than a Disputant pleaded for infant-baptism from the efficacy of baptism more from speeches of the Fathers than from the Scripture Sure I am baptism was appointed by Christ and used in the examples of the Scripture as a testimony of Repentance of faith in Christ no cause of either And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin or the cause of Regeneration or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin or to testifie the freedom from it without actual These things have been delivered by Augustine and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted and therefore Mr. Stephens Mr. Cranford Mr. Bedford c. in using this Argument do but symbolize with the Papists and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded SECT XVII The 31. Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture Proof c. is answered and Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his Argument from Deut. 29. shewed to be insufficient THere are yet some other Texts which are brought by Paedobaptists out of the New Testament for an institution and practice of infant-baptism Mr. B. Plain Scripture Proof of infant-baptism part 1. cap. 31. brings Mark 9. 36 37. to prove that Christ hath expresly assured us that he hath not repealed the privilege of infants visible Church-membership and upon it fals to his Rhetorick and tels us of his boldness in adventuring on this rule All which I judg frivolous nor needs it any further answer there being no new Argument and what he before spake of that Scripture is answered before Sect. 15. where it is shewed that Mark 9. 37. by little childe is not meant one that is so in respect of age but in respect of quality and that the receiving is not meant of baptism but entertainment in receiving the Doctrine brought and shewing kindness to their persons But he adds And it is not once but oft that he hath thus manifested his will in the very next Chapter he doth it more fully yet Mark 10. 14 15 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said to them Suffer ye little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe he shall not enter therein and he took them up in his arms put his hands on them and blessed them And is not here enough to satisfie us yet that he doth not cast all infants in the world out of his visible Kingdom or Church but that it is his will they should be admitted Will any say that it was not infants in the former Text and this that Christ speaks of Did he take any but infants into his arms Was it not plainly them that he did bid them receive in the former Chapter and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him And was it not them that he bid should be suffered to come that is to be brought and was it not them that he blessed Answ. Mr. M. in his Sermon had alleged this Tex to prove that the infants of believers even while they are infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men I answered 1. It is doubtfull whether those little children Mark 10. 14.
they run into wilde fancies as that they believe in the Church in their Parents in their sureties in their being baptized But Mr. Bs. hold is in his Parenthesis against which I except 1. that his speech of admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples supposeth that a person is first admitted into Christs Church and then to be his Disciple whereas no man is rightly admitted into Christs Church who is not first a Disciple 2. That he saith This Luke 18. 16. is a standing Commandment But this we must take on Mr. Bs. word there 's nothing in the Text or in Mr. Bs. writing to prove it Nor is it likely For if so me thinks the Apostles and the Writers of the New Testament should not have been so negligent as neither to observe this command after this time nor to have recorded any act done by the Apostles according to that command 3. That Chists speech is of the species of infants and not of these individuals onely 1. Is said without proof yea it is more probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as Suffer these little children to come to me and that because as Paedobaptists urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven which is the reason of Christs injunction is meant of those infants 2. Were it granted not to be meant of those individuals onely yet this is all that can be thence proved that if after that time other infants were brought to Christ in that manner to be touched by him they should be suffered It may be granted that there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church But this is enough to prove that there is now no such visible admittance to Christ as those Mark 10. 14 had who were admitted to Christs person to be touched by him and not into his visible Church by baptism 5. Saith Mr. B. If of such be the Kingdom of God then of such is the visible Church but the former is true Therefore c. Answ. The consequence is denied Of infants in the mothers womb as Jacob John Baptist c. is the Kingdom of God and yet the visible Church is not of such But saith Mr. B. Here they have two cavils against the plain sense of the Text 1. By such is meant such for docâ—bleâ—ess and humility To which I answer 1. Then it seems they are so docible and humble that the Kingdom belongs to them For if it belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to others also Answ. Mr. Bs. censure of the Answers I gave as cavils is as the rest of this his Dispute rash and inconsiderate For the very words Mark 10. 15. do directly lead to that sense I give and the words of Christ Matth. 18. 3 4. plainly expound wherein they that enter into the Kingdom of God must be like children But to the matter of his Answer 1. The conclusion is granted nor was it ever denyed by me that of some infants is the Kingdom of God and particularly of those whom Christ blessed but yet not because of their docibleness and humility but because of Christs blessing Nor do I allow Mr. Bs. consequence that if the Kingdom did belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to them also For the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to others because they are such as them in the properties common to them with other children But the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to them as blessed by Christ not in respect of docibleness and humility It may be it will be said that then little children have those properties for which of them may be the Kingdom of God I answer it doth not follow but this onely follows that there is such teachableness and humility in little children in other respects which other men imitating and expressing in spiritual things and so becoming such as they are by analogy and resemblance in that respect belong to the Kingdom of God 2. Saith Mr. B. Doth Christ say To such as them in this or that respect onely and not to them or saith he not in general To such even to such as he took in his arms and blessed He would not have taken up and blessed any for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed he would not have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility and innocency If Christ say of such is the Kingdom I am bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate me to restrain it And therefore must understand it to such both of that age or any other age Who dare think that the word to such is not rather inclusive as to them than exclusive If I love humble poor men and my servants keep them from my house because they are poor and if I chide them for it and say Suffer such to come to me and forbid them not for my delight is in such who would so interpret this speech as to think I would exclude them while I command their admittance And that I meant other humble ones and not these Answ. Doth Mr. B. say To such in general in respect of age onely belongs the Kingdom of God If he do say so as his words seem to import then it follows that to every infant whether of believers or unbelievers elect or reprobate belongs the Kingdom of God If not then he must say as I say if he will speak truth that 1. To those infants belonged the Kingdom in this respect onely as they were blessed by Christ or elect 2. If it be applied to other infants it can be applied to no others but such as are blessed by Christ or elect 3. And for other persons that under the term of such are meant also persons of age like them in humility and teachableness is so manifest from v. 15. Matth. 18. 3. 4. 5. that it is nothing but cavilling in Mr. B. thus to carp at my plain and clear exposition of the words agreeable to the most approved expositors as Beza Annot. ad Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est horum similium ut supra 18. Piscat sch in Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quales scilicet sunt isti pueruli nempe credentes in me demissè de se senâ—ientes confer supra c. 18. 2. seq that I omit others Neither do I nor need I say that Christ took them or blessed the little ones for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed or that he might by like reason with mine have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility And though Mr. Bs. rule may be questioned whether a man be bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate him to restrain it yet I gainsay it not to understand to such
both of that age or any other and I allow that Christ meant those and other humble ones and that the term of such is both inclusive including more than those particular little ones and exclusive of those that are not elect or blessed by Christ. And though I maintain by firm Arguments in my Postscript to Mr. Blake sect 20. that by the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matth. 19. 14. or of God as Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. is meant the Kingdom of Glory which Mr. B. denies not yet were it allowed Mr. B. that it is meant of the visible Church it is not true of all infants of believers that of them is the visible Church for infants in the womb as Jacob are of the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church yet not of the visible much less of the species of infants as Mr. B. speaks For then every individual infant should be of the visible Church though the Parents be unbelievers which Mr. B. me thinks should gainsay and therefore there is plain reason necessitating to restrain the speech of Christ as I do 3. Saith Mr. B. When Mr. T. maketh their docibleness the thing intended by Christ he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being Disciples Why may not those be Disciples who are not onely docible but exemplary for their teachableness Answ. Mr. T. tels Mr. B. he did not forget but thinks Mr. B. did not heed The docibleness allowed to infants was in things natural such as are to know the Nurse imitate gestures to be stilled from crying when rebuked c. but not in things spiritual to know Christ to be the Son of God the Messiah c. which are necessary to denominate them Disciples of Christ. Yet such teachableness and humility onely negative in not ambitiously affecting preheminence are sufficient for Christ to propound them as examples or similitudes rather to direct his Disciples to imitate in another kinde Their second Objection saith Mr B. is that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven And I think so too but then if the Kingdom of Heaven belong to such much more a standing as members in the visible Church For what is it to be a member of the Church visible but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven For the Church is but one and the difference respective as I shewed before therefore both visible and invisible both military and triumphant are called in Scripture the Kingdom of Heaven or of God If a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members 〈◊〉 the Church so that this proof is more full for infants Church-membership than if it had been said they may be visibl◠Church-members For it saith much more of them which includeth that Answ. Mr. B. thinks it seems with me that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven that is of Glory or the invisible Church which if true then of no infants but elect is the Kingdom of God for no other are of the invisible Church or enter into the Kingdom of Glory And if so not the the very species of infants but particular persons and of these not all perhaps but a few of the infants of believers perhaps more of the infants of unbelievers are of the Kingdom of God But however he thinks it will follow à majori that if of infants is the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church or Kingdom of Glory then much more they have a standing in the visible Church To which I say 1. If this Argument were good it could onely prove those infants to be of the visible Church who are elect 2. It can prove it onely of those who in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of men do belong to the invisible Church or be known to belong to the invisible Church But no infants in particular are known to belong to the invisible Church nor is there any note whereby any infant in particular may be discerned to be of the invisible Church which may make it seem or appear to the judgment of man Ergo there is no infant no not according to Mr. Bs. own description hath a standing in the visible Church The minor of this Argument I expect should be denied but it will concern them that do deny it to shew us out of Scripture where God hath given us any sign though but probable to judg such an infant to be of the invisible Church of the elect such a one not If any say Gods covenant and the Parents faith I reply God hath plainly declared Rom. 9. 7 8 9 10 12 13 18. that he hath not made any promise to the natural seed of Abraham that he will be their God in respect of saving grace much less to the natural seed of every or any believer of this time but that notwithstanding any covenant he hath made he takes the seed of unbelievers to be his children and leaves the seed of bellevers to be hardened and this appeared plainly in Jacob and Esau of the same Parents believers born together yet one loved the other hated and the Gentiles called when the Jews were rejected We say truly the book of life is a secret which belongs to God who hath hidden it yea hath so ordered it by the strange variations of his calling that his judgments should be unsearchable and his paths past finding out Rom. 11. 33. And therefore no man hath warrant from Gods Word to frame any judgment concerning this or that infant to be of the invisible Church But because Mr. B. says somewhat to prove his consequence let us consider what he brings That which he sayth is 1. The Church is but one and the difference respective 2. He that saith that they belong to the invisible saith much more even that which includeth that they are visible if I understand his obscure expressions Church-members 3. That to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven Answ. 1. It is true the universal Church of the elect is but one and the difference respective yet the difference such that all the invisible are not of the visible Church nor all the visible of the invisible nor by any good consequence can it be made good they that are of the invisible are much more of the visible no not when they are known to be of the invisible Church The first is manifest by instances the spirits of the just made perfect elect persons yet unbegotten yet uncalled called but not yet shewing it are of the invisible Church but not of the visible on the other side secret hypocrites are of the visible but not of the invisible And the last
Assertion is manifest in that though it is more to be of the invisible Church than of the visible yet that which denominates a person of the visible Church doth not agree always to a member of the invisible Church But Mr. B. thinks the contrary to be true and accordingly frames an explication of what it is to be a member of the Church visible which I must not call a definition for that is excepted against by him Praefestin Morator sect 11. as if in Logick any descriptions or explications of words or things were not usually called definitions though imperfect Let 's examine it however He tels us here what it is to be a visible Church-member which because he doth elsewhere more fully express I shall have an eye on the writings elsewhere and so much the rather because in this mistake of his lieth much of the fallacy of Mr. Bs. second Argument In his Praefest Morator sect 11. He saith when he distinguisheth the Church into visible and invisible He doth not divide the genus into the species sed aequivocum in sua aequivocata but I think he is mistaken in this for then a term is equivocal as Arist. Categ in the beginning tels us When the name is onely common but not the reason of being or the definition according to that name but the definition of the Church of Christ even that which Mr. B. himself saith All Divines are agreed on plain Scripture c. pag. 82. that it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world doth agree to the visible Church and therefore the term Church of Christ is not an equivocal term but a genus whether univocal or analogum And I add saith he that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical or that the name is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible Answ. I grant that the Church invisible is famosius or primarium Analogatum that is the invisible Church is more truly or in a greater degree of propriety Christs Church than the visible yet do not think the name of the Church is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible For the original meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Church being an assembly or meeting or congregation of people in one place who are an object visible I conceive that the term Church first agrees to the visible Church and secondarily to the invisible yea in exact speech the invisible Church now are called the Church in order to their meeting or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or General assembly at the last day for Heb. 12. 23. these are joined together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the General assembly and Church or as it is termed 2 Thess. 2. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our gathering together unto Christ at which time the visible Church and invisible will be all one visible company 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one sheepfold one Shâ—pheard John 10. 16. nor do I conceive the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical but because by their words and actions discernible by sense they own Christ as their Lord without any consideration of their election or reprobation sincerity or hypocrisy Christs approbation or non-approbation of them And that the seeming to other men to be of the invisible Church is not the reason of the appellation of a visible Church or Church-member I gather hence becaus a person may seem to be of the invisible Church yea may be known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect as for instance Jacob and John Baptist in their mothers womb seemed yea were known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect Luke 1. 15. yet not of the visible For sure they were not visible Church-members when they were not visible men Yea there may be many visible men who may seem with great probability upon signs of their conversion wrought on them to be of the invisible Church and not of the visible as a number of Indians hearing Mr. Eliat or Mr. Mayhew preach and shewing affection by tears smiting of their breasts lifting up their eys to Heaven and such like actions have seemed from these sensible expressions of their own to be elect persons such as God intended to save and yet I think no man will say that at that time they were visible Church-members till they afterwards made profession of faith in Christ. Mr. B. goeth on thus So that if you ask me whether it be certain or onely probable that infants are members of the visible Church I say certain Answ. If Mr. B. mean it of the sorts or as he cals it species of infants it may easily appear by this Review that it is so far from being certain that infants are members of the visible Church Christian that it hath scarse a shew of probability If he mean it of the individuals I say that according to Mr. Bs. own sayings there is no certainty that any infant is a visible Church-member For according to him to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven But this belonging in seeming appearance or to the judgment of man is uncertain it s but a judgment of probability which any man hath of any mans belonging to the invisible Church Mr. B. himself plain Scripture c. p. 73. sayth Therefore even Cardinal Cuâ—anus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs Therefore there is no certainty of it that any particular infant is a visible Church-member If it be sayd that the seeming is certain though it be not certain that they belong to the invisible Church I reply so it may be sayd that if Turks infants seem to be of the visible Church though to a fool or frantick man the seeming is certain But I suppose Mr. B. means that it is certain and not onely probable to considerate men to whom things are not certain of which they have not certain evidence that infants are visible Church-members But this understanding it of particulars is not certain upon any good evidence that they are members of the Church invisible and therefore it is not certain they are visible church-members sith by Mr. Bs. description to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible Church and therefore as the seeming to be of the invisible Church is so is the visibility both uncertain and as most probable and so all baptizing of infants is upon uncertain grounds and therefore a man cannot do it in faith he being uncertain he doth his duty which thing is also made good elsewhere from Mr. Bs. concessions Antipaedobapt part 1. sect 35. But Mr. B. thinks he hath sure grounds and therefore
To which I answer The phrase Children of the Kingdom I finde diversly used Matth. 8 12. it is appropriated to the Jews and it is spoken of them which shall be cast out into utter darkness But Matth. 13. 38. it is meant of the elect who shall be saved In the former sense the major is manifestly false and the minor can be onely true of Jews infants in the later sense the major Proposition is true of children of the Kingdom who are visibly such by their profession of faith in Christ and the minor is false if it be meant of such as are invisibly children of the Kingdom the major is denied and the minor is granted Mr. Bl. adds somewhat more about the meaning of the words of Christ of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And first he saith The particle such cannot here have reference to their qualification that those that were qualified as these in humility and meekness had their interest so are Sheep and Doves as well as infants not proud nor revengefull Answ. This reason is not of force to prove that such cannot here have reference to the qualification of meekness and humility For being so expounded such notes others than the infants to wit men that are humble and meek positively as infants are negatively and this cannot be sayd of Doves or sheep yet infants may be included as Beza doth Annot in Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est horum similium ut supra 18. which is plainly proved by our Lord Christs own words Mark 10. 15. where of such v. 14. is whosoever receiveth the Kingdom of God as a little childe v. 15. and so it is meant Matth. 18. 5. as I have proved above Nor is Mr. Bls. reasoning of force That which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants and a just ground of those that brought them is that which Christ understands in this reproof of the Disciples and admission of their infants But it was their want of growth their littleness which the Disciples took to be a just impedinent and which occasioned their reproof Ergo. For the conclusion may be granted yet this proves not that by of such is meant in respect of quantity onely not of quality but onely that in the words before suffer little children to come to me quantity is meant not quality for in those words onely is the reproof of the Disciples and Christs admission of infants The other are a reason of his command which is good if by such be meant likeness in quality as well as agreement in quantity And for Mr. Bls. paraphrase it is but his own conceit that the little children had no need of cure or that the Disciples rebuke was after his model But enough of this before Mr. Bl. excepts against me for saying the Kingdom of Heaven is meant of the Kingdom of glory and that on this hinge the answer to the whole argument turns He saith I had six exceptions against the orthodox interpretation of this scripture in my Examen being hunted out of all the rest I think to finde sâ—m shâ—lter there But this is his figment for though I of mine own accord expressed some onely as doubtfull and let pass others for more ample conviction of the invalidity of the vain arguing called falsely Orthodox interpretation of this Text by paed baptists yet I did not so much as relinquish one of the exceptions much less have been hunted from them as Mr. Bl. after his pedant que fashion talks But in opposition to me he first saith That all hangs not on this appears in that our Saviour had said enough in his order for admission of these infants on which we can build our conclusion And then brings his argument which being answered before there is no need of any more reply to this Yet I add that of the argument drawn by Mr. Bl. pag. 91. of his answer to my letter none that are intâ—ressed in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom may be denied an admission to it by baptism but infants have their interests in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom and therefore may not be denied admission by baptism the hinge did turn on this point that by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the visible Church into which he would have infants admitted by baptism and my speech is true of that Argument Mr. Blake adds Secondly for his Reasons there is not force in them 1. Saith he The kingdom of God must be understood Mark 10. 14. as it is v. 15. and Luke 18. 16. as v. 17. and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both those This I prove because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate Apol. pag. 150. This Argument howsoever it carries more colour than usually is fouâ—d in Mr. T. his Reason yet it is not conclusive It may be taken more largely in Christs argumentation and in a more restrained sense in his words of instruction and application as in a place much parallel I shall shew 1 Cor. 6 1 2. There we have the Apostles reproof v. 1. and his Reason v. 2 as in the Evangelists we have Christs assertion confirming his reproof v. 14 and his application v. 15. Now Saint in the Apostles reproof is taken more largely than it is taken in his Reason A visible Saint is meant in the first place a real and glorified Saint in the second visible Saints may judg in small matters for real Saints in glory shall judg the world shall judg Angels and so it may be here infants have their present title to the visible Kingdom and men qualified as infants shall onely enter the Kingdom of Glory Answ. I see Mr. Bl. so pertinacious in what he hath said in this argument that he is cedere nescius he knows not how to yeild to any thing against his dictates though it be never so plain He denies not Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. must be understood of the Kingdom of glory for the reason given by me in my Postscript The proposition being false being understood of the visible Church many proud persons entering therein as Simon Magus Diotrephes c. But denies it to be conclusive and therefore must deny the major But he answers nothing to the proof of it because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate Whence the argument ariseth The same estate is meant Mark 10. 14. which is mean v. 15. This is proved from the inference of Christ which is as of little children is the kingdom of God so whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it or the same estate the relative particle plainly notes it to be the same But the estate Mark 10. 15. is meant of the Kingdom of glory which is proved because otherwise the proposition were false
nor is it denied by Mr. Bl. therefore the argument is most plainly conclusive Mr. Bls. answer is either upon a wilfull or heedeless mistake of my argument as if it were onely from the identity of the words in both verses whereas it was taken from the sameness of estate gathered by the force of our Saviours whether application of v. 15. as Mr. Bl. terms it or inference from what he had said v. 14. and the relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it I deny not that it is frequent according to the figure in Rhetorick termed antanaclasis to use terms sometimes in the same verse elegantly in a different sense but it cannot be so here for the reasons given And yet Mr. Bls. instance 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. is not right For 1 Cor. 6 2. the term Saint doth not note a glorified Saint For the sense is this know ye not these now despised Saints shall hereafter judg the world and so though it be true that then they shall be glorified yet the term Saints is attributed to them according to their present estate of debasement in which the very Emphasis is put Besides if it had been so that in the one v. it noted a visible Saint here and in the other a glorified Saint hereafter yet the same persons were meant in both verses whereas if Mark 10. 14. were meant the visible Church who are a number of persons and v. 15. were meant an estate of glory there would be a greater difference than in 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. and therefore Mr. Bl. doth not rightly say the one place is much parallel to the other Mr. Bl. goes on His second reason that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church and therefore speaks not of the Church visible I know not how to make up into a reason if I understood it I would either yeild or answer it Answ. The reason is thus formed The same is meant Mark 10. 14. which is meant v. 15. as is before proved But by the Kingdom of God v. 15. is not meant the visible Church Ergo neither v. 14. The minor is thus proved By the Kingdom of God is meant that estate into which the Apostles had not but were thereafter to enter into For the speech is meant of them as well as others and directed to them Verily I say to you and so where the same thing is sayd Matth. 18. 3. it is sayd to and of them Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens But the estate the Apostles were to enter into was not the visible Church for that they had entered into already but the Kingdom of glory Therefore by the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. is meant the Kingdom of glory Mr. Bl. adds The third reason that the speech Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Matth. 18. 3 4 but there it is meant of the Kingdom of glory Ergo so here is answered already If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18. 3 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question is unlike Matth. 18. 3 4. Answ. 1. If Mark 10. 15. be like Matth. 18. 3 4. then also Mark 10. 14. is in like manner understood the Kingdom of Heaven as Matth. 18. 3 4. For it is understood of the same Mark 10. 14 15. as is proved before 2. Mr. B. conceived them like by putting them together in the chapter before answered and the New Annot. and Diodati whose Testimonies are alleged in my Postscript pag. 151. Mr. Bl. adds Thirdly were it granted him that the Kingdom of glory must be understood both in Christs reason and application yet he is nothing holpen Infants have right to the Church visible militant bcause they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant Acts 2 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved not necessarily saved but now having entered Covenant with God they were in a capacity and therefore added as visible Church-members Infants standing in this capacity ought to have admission likewise Answ. It helps me much to answer the arguments drawn from Matth. 19. 14. for infants visible Church-membership if by the Kingdom of Heaven be not meant the visible Church For then it is not there affirmed that infants are visible Church-members Nor doth Mr. Bls. reserve regain the loss to prove it by consequence For his speech is not true Infants have right meaning of admission to the visible Church because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant Nor is it proved Acts 2. 47. where Mr. Bl. perverts the meaning of the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in English the saved that is either the saved from that crooked generation v. 40. by their effectual calling as 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 3. 5. or by an enallage of tense such as should be saved and that certainly or necessarily as 2 Cor. 2. 15. not as Mr. Bl. they were in a capacity to be saved for so were those that were not called and therefore added as visible Church-members Nor is Mr. Bls. proposition gathered thence for neither is there any thing in the words to prove that then all were added to the Church which should be saved much less which were in a capacity to be saved or on the contrary that all that were added to the Church should be saved much less that their right to be added to the Church was from this that they should be saved It is said the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved it is not said the Apostles added them to the Church because they were to be saved yea v. 41. it is said that even of those that were to be saved they gladly received the word and then were baptized and added So that if the Text be rightly looked into there is nothing to be gathered thence of the persons right to be added to the Church or the Ministers duty to add to the Church by baptism persons meerly upon this consideration that they shall be saved but onely that it is the course of Gods providence to add to his Church such as shall be saved I yet add that if Mr. Bls. proposition were granted him they have a right to the Church-visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded Matth. 19. 14. Acts 2. 47. it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptized and to be added to the Church not the natural children of true believers who are many of them non elect nor can a Minister gather thence he ought to baptize any of them till he know they are elect and shall be saved and therefore they rashly and profanely baptize from hence them that they have no knowledg of that of them is the Kingdom of glory and
that they shall be saved SECT XIX Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. part 1. cap. 5. and the arguings of Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Fuller Mr. Sidenham from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered HAving answered Mr. B. Mr. Bl. my two eager Antagonists I shall add animadversions on Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just Vindic. part 1. ch 4. sect 1. 1. He says without proof that they that brought the infants mentioned Luke 18. 15. were pious minded parents 2. He denies of such is the kingdom of God to be meant of the Kingdom of glory the contrary whereof is proved in the next section before against Mr. Blake 3. He supposeth that these words suffer little children to come to me being granted to contain a rule of suffering little ones of that sort such as those are to come to him and the words of such is the Kingdom of God being expounded of the invisible Church it must be conceived that Christ must direct them to suffer members of the invisible Church to come to him and then that they may be known But this is his mistake they that expound thus the words suffer these little children and other little children in age if any hereafter be brought to my person to be touched to come to me and forbid them not as ye have don these For however they are persons that are not fit to be my hearers yet of these now brought and of some other infants which may be brought and men of years like them in quality is the Kingdom of God the invisible Church or the Kingdom of glory belongs to them may avouch this exposition without supposing their election must come under the cognizance of men nor need they say that onely such who were elected were by this rule so expâ—unded to be permitted to come to Christ. 4. That Christ spake of those infants not as an extraordinary inspired Prophet is said without proof not is it likely sitâ— such blessings were never given but by extraordinary inspiration and Christ appoints not the admitting of little children to any no not to his Apostles but himself 5. That he delivered an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards is said without proof nor is it likely sith we reade no more of that practise by any of the Apostles nor any rule concerning it after this one act of Christ Sect. 2. Hâ— denies that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven might be spoken in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should in time be of Gods Kingdom that is believers or that they were such as God would bless For Christs words are not of such may will or shall be the Kingdom of God nor that they were of his Kingdom because such as he would bless but rather that they should not be hindered from being blessed of him because of such is the Kingdom of God To which I answer that by the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. 14. and the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14 15 Luke 18 16 17. must needs be meant the Kingdom of glory is proved before then the sense can be no other than of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Kingdom of glory belongs to such as Mat. 5. 3 10. and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth of signifie as Mark 9. 14 c. And then it must needs be an enallage of tense as Mat. 18 1. as Pisc. sch on Mat. 18. 1. est pro futurus est enallage temporis or as Pisc. sch on Matth. 5. 3. ipsis destinatum est dabitur and this is all one as to say they are elect which is Piscators term in his observation on Matth. 19. 14. as I shewed above in answer to Mr. Blake and thus of such is the kingdom of God refers to the present estate as elect to their future as possessours of glory hereafter And so to Mr. Cobbets objection I answer Matth. 5. 10. it is not said theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven but is and yet it must be understood of present title and future possession so here And for his exception at my words that the reason may be given why these infants did belong to Gods Kingdom because they were such as Christ would bless is not avoided by saying they were blessed because of Gods Kingdom For both ways the reason is good they should not be hindered from blessing because theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven the end of blessing or they should not be hindered from blessing because he intended to bless them and therefore theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven Either way that I intended to prove Examen pag. 147. is evinced that the reason why theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven is not from their parents faith which should have been if it were meant as Paedobaptists would of interest in the visible Church but Gods election or Christs blessing I have often said that if Christs minde had been that infants should be baptized he would have commanded these little ones to have been baptized for an Example To this Mr. Cobbet answers that according to our principles they were elect heirs of the kingdom of glory now why should not or were not these infants at least baptized Answ. Because though elect yet were not believers or Disciples by profession But You would allow saith he such to be baptized if of grown years Answ. No untill they were believers or Disciples not barely because elect and heirs of glory But You say saith he that if by extraordinary revelation you knew an infant to be sanctified you would baptize it because the extraordinary revelation would authorize it and the words of Peter Acts 10. 47. and the institution Matth. 28. 19. And then it would follow 1. That persons may be Disciples without being outwardly taught 2. It is agreeable to the rule that persons without personal profession of faith should be baptized Albeit extraordinary things done besides rule cross not ordinary rule yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule 3. It was the minde of Christ they should be baptized as that they should be instructed though it be not expressed Answ. 1. It is true I grant in my Examen p. 142 158 160. upon the grounds mentioned that an infant regenerated united to Christ sanctified by the Spirit upon extraordinary revelation of this might be baptized and the like is said by Mr. Blackwood Apostolical Bapt. p. 51. And for those that have the thing signified let them make it appear to any Church of Christ and they cannot deny their baptism But yet it follows not that these infants might be baptized which are mentioned Matth. 19. 14. For though their election be mentioned yet not their regeneration and sanctification Now Praedestinatio nil ponit in praedestinato and therefore it makes not Disciples or believers at present but assures it as future but we are to baptize actual Disciples and
believers not future But However saith he they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught Answ. Who denies it yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons But then saith he a person may be baptized without personal profession Answ. It is granted when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise nor is this contrary to the Rule sith that is to baptise known Disciples who are ordinarily known by their personal profession though in this case Gods extraordinary act supplies that want Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule For Abrahams killing his son was in it self contrary to rule yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done And for the third though it might be conceived Christs minde that the children should be instructed though it be not mentioned Luke 18. 16 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law yet baptising infants being a meer positive rite that hath no reason or warrant but institution is not to be conceived Christs minde without some declaration which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity nor at any time else expressed There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable as that he makes the infants paterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received whereas â— the words Matth. 18. 3â—4 do plainly make them paterns onely of humility and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign as laying on hands c. shall not enter therein For then that Popish Doctrine or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven And in like manner it is gratis dictum without proof sayd of such like infants like them in covenant and Church interest in God is his kingdom there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase and the plain meaning is before expressed That which Mr. Cobbet sayth in answer to the reason of Piscator Why they were not infants because Christ called them I conceive is not an answer For what he sayth that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham Heb. 7. is not right For 1. that which is sayd of Levi is to be understood of Levi not of Abraham for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose to say Abraham payd Tyths in Abraham 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents which was spoken to the children Other things I let pass which oppose not my dispute but others and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter I refer to another place This is sufficient in answer to what he sayth in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16 17. Dr. Homes in his Animad on my Exercit. pag. 57 58. argues thus To whom indefinitely as such Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs to them as such the seal of converance and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the Text here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of Heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven and the blessing of Heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is baptism Answ. Neither is it true That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven and the blessing for it that I finde in Scripture but the Spirit Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such that is as little children For then it should belong to all little children nor to them as children of believing parents for it should belong to all children of believing parents but as they are elect And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called and believe not before as a conveyance may be made to a childe yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it and is fit to make use of it So that the major may be denied if the belonging of the seal be meant in respect of present use or possession And the minor is to be denied if as such be meant as little children or children of believers and the inference on the conclusion is denied the seal belongs to them Ergo baptism Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently Nor hath Mr. Geree in his Vâ—ndiciae Vindiciarum ch 10. brought any thing worth rejoyning in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101 102. It is false which he saith in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgment of certainty but charity nor is a judgment of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism For if so then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptize him Mr. Bailleâ—'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants that therefore baptism a seal of that same kinde when once the Lord had solemnely at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them is but dictates 1. He says baptism is a seal of the same kinde with Christs laying on hands which he saith without proof nor is it true For. 1. Christs laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples John 4. 1 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptized Acts 2. 38. not onely the baptizers but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kinde with laying on of hands then laying on hands is a seal and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism which is counted a point of Popery 2. To
were infants 2. Whether it be said of them Is the Kingdom of Heaven 3. Whether they were believers infants 4. Whether the Kingdom of Heaven be said to be of them in their present estate or their future 5. The reason why of them is the Kingdom of Heaven may be referred to Christs blessing not to their Parents faith 6. That Christs action in this was proper to him as the great Prophet and extraordinary and therefore not fit to make a constant rule for an ordinance and if it be to that use it is more apposite to establish confirmation than baptism sith Christ did neither baptize nor appoint them to be baptized though he said of them is the Kingdom of Heaven In all likelihood if infant-baptism had been according to Christs minde he would have taken this occasion to appoint it which he not doing it is very probable that he would not have it done To all which Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 221 222. replied onely this that they were dictates and brought in to little purpose whereas there is nothing sayd by me without reason and some proof and yet I being a respondent it was more than my business necessitated me to produce so much a denial being sufficient for the respondent And whereas he saith I grant enough to serve his turn that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to those infants and concludes that their infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace and some of them actually partakers of it and this is enough for him and that more than this cannot be said of grown men who are visible professors To it I say Though I should grant that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to these infants yet it serves not his turn to prove thence that the infants of believers are visible Church-members and that believers infants have right to baptism except it be proved that their parents were believers that the Kingdom of Heaven for that reason did belong to them and in this thing was intended by Christ the establishing a settled rule for infants interest in the Church and baptism Capacity of inward grace is not denied to infants no not to Turks infants whether any of them be partakers actually of inward grace is not determined nor is it true that no more can be sayd of grown men for the making of visible profession may be said of grown mâ—n which cannot be said of infants But Mr. B. is eager for infant-baptism as conclusible hence le ts see what he saies First he begins with his Rhetorick which commonly supplies the want of proof Then he heaps â—p seven or eight inteâ—rogations and takes all for granted which he demands But to them I say To the first 1. I except against his expression which infinuates as if by denying that infants are visible Church-members they were cast out of Christs visible Church whereas it is one thing not to reckon them in and another to cast them out which is but once used in Scripture 3 Iohn 10. and this phrase serves onely to provoke passion 2. It is so far from being true that there is enough in those Texts to satisfy that Christ would have infants admitted into his visible Church that it is rather true on the contrary that there is enough against it To his other questions I answer 1. By denying that they were infants he would have received Mark 9. 37. 2. whether they were infants he took in his arms whom he would not to be kept from him but suffered to come to him and whom he blessed it is uncertain Piscator Estius c. conceive they were young ones that could come of themselves being called But be it granted they were infants le ts see what Mr. B. gathers thence Hence saith he I argue thus 1. If Christ would have us receive infants in his name then we must receive them as belonging to him and his Church But he would have us to receive them in his name therefore c. 2. If he that receiveth an infant in his name receiveth himself then some infants are to be received in his name and those that refuse them sin But the former is true therefore the later Answ. 1. Both the conclusions might be granted and yet Mr. Bs. cause not gained the former because infants may belong to Christ and his Church to wit the invisible and yet it not be proved thence they are visible Church-members the later because they may be received in Christs name as by harbouring feeding them and yet not be admitted to baptism 2. The minor in both Syllogismes is false For the Text Mark 9. 37. speaks not of infants in age to be received but of believers that are humble and low in condition as infants particularly of his Apostles 3. Saith Mr. B. if Christ was much displeased with those that kept particular infants from visible access to him then though they could not keep them from his visible grace I think he will be much more displeased with those that keep all the infants in the world from visible access to him in his Church now though they cannot keep them from the invisible Church But the former is true Therefore the later Answ. The conclusion is granted For what visible access to Christ in his Church now can be but by profession of faith I know not If Mr. B. know of any that keep infants from professing faith let him threaten them and spare not But that which he tels us that we keep infants from visible access to Christ because we baptize them not for want of profession of faith is but a squib that may affright women and children when intelligent persons laugh at it 4. Saith he If Christ command us to suffer them to come and not to forbid them then those sin against his express Command that will not suffer them to come but do forbid them for it is a standing Command and speaks of infants and not of these individuals onely and there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples But c. therefore c. Answ. The conclusion is granted without any detriment to our cause we forbid not any to come to Christ. There 's no coming to Christ no was those little children came that is to come to his person for blessing cure or teaching by himself in the flesh There 's no coming to Christ now but by hearing his word and believing in him as John 6. 35. is expressed If any forbid infants to do so let him bear the blame But we forbid infants to be baptized till they come to Christ that is till they believe and we are sure we have the Scripture for us Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Ephes. 5. 4. Gal. 3. 26 27. A thing so known that all that heretofore baptized infants did take this as unquestionable that believers onely are to be baptized and therefore to justifie infant-baptism
Heaven do not visibly belong to the Church unless they are known so bâ— some sensible expression yea of their own which is not true of infants much less oâ— the sort of them or any sort of being no sort of beings being visible but onely singulaâ—s Mr. B. goes on thus 8. But the chief evidence in the Text lieth here if because that of such is the Kingdom therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back them it must needs be the very species of infants that Christ means are of the Kingdom and not onely the aged humble but therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back and their duty to admit them or else Christ would not have been much displeased with them because that of such is the Kingdom therefore it must needs be infants themselves that are of the Kingdom The reason of the consequence lieth here It would be no sin 〈◊〉 the Disciples to keep away from Christ those that were 〈◊〉 mâ—er Embleâ—s of the saved For else it would have been the Disciples sin to have forbidden all the Sheep or Doves in the countrey to have been brought to Christ to lâ—y hanâ—s on This is plain and convincing to me Answ. The conclusion iâ— granted that it was the infants if they were infants that were brought to Christ themselves and not onely the aged humble resembled by them that are of the Kingdom Mr. B. needed not to have cast away so much pains in â—râ—ving it against me who do in my Postscripâ— sect 〈◊〉 say I stick not to that Exposition of not including those infants But I think Mr. B. would prove that not onely Christ said of those infants but of the very species of infants is the Kingdom of God Which speech of his hath in it sundry absurditieâ— 1. He seems to make infants a distinct species from the aged whereas in â—ogâ—ck 〈◊〉 mankinde is species iâ— a the lowest kâ—â—â—â— in the Predicament of substance and it is a Rule in that Art â—haâ— Seâ— and Age 〈◊〉 vâ—riant speciem do not vary the kinde 2 When he saith the very species are of the Kingdom sith he grants that by the Kingdom is meant the invisible Church his words sâ—â—m to 〈◊〉 that all infants are of the invisible Church For the very species câ—â—prehâ—nd all the individuals and then he must holdâ— all infants are elect for onely the elect are of the invisible Church and if after they be reprobaâ—e then election is revâ—cable and the elect may not be saved But if he meaâ— it odely of some of that sort and particularly all the infants of believers neither is that tâ—â—â— sith the contrary is manifest in Esau. But if he mean no more than this that of some elect infants yea and of others than those particular infants is the Kingdom of God I should not stick to grant it nor need Mr. B. thus trouble himself to prove it though I think his consequence is not good For it might be their sin to keep back those infants from Christ if Christ did by any sign discover his minde to have them brought though it were not to declare their title or any other infants title to the Kingdom of Heaven but onely to use them as Emblems Nor is Mr. Bs. reason forcible that then it might have been their sin to have forbidden Sheep and Doves to be brought to Christ. For it may be granted that this might have been their sin if Christ had in like manner declared his minde by any sign concerning such Sheep that they should be brought to him Mr. Bs. arguing runs upon this supposition that the Apostles might know it was their duty at all times to permit infants to come to Christ from a general truth that of all infants at least of believers is the Kingdom of God which he neither proves nor can prove whereas the Apostles fault might be in not heeding some particular thing he had then by some words or other sign made known of those infants then brought or not considering Christs Office and constant practice of doing good to all specially to infirm and diseased persons such as those infants might be and as some conceive were and accordingly brought to be cured by Christ. But Mr. B. is not yet come to that he would have 9. Saith he Those that Christ took in his arms laid his hands on and blessed were visible members of his Church and not meer resemblances of such but some infants Christ took in his arms laid his hands on and blessed therefore some infants were members of the visible Church and consequently Christ hath not repealed the Church-membership of infants and they were not meer resemblances of such For would Christ have blessed so a Sheep or Dove or are they blessed of Christ and yet not so much as visible members of his Church Sure there are none visibly blest without the visible Church And it was not these onely for I have proved it was the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing Answ. I do not say that the infants Christ took in his arms were meer resemblances of visible Church-members and therefore Mr. B. in seeking to prove it still follows a false sent proving what is not denied But the other part of the conclusion is denied by me to wit that some infants were members of the visible Church and that part of the major those that Christ took in his arms laid his hands on and blessed were visible members of his Church and for his proof that none are visibly blest without the visible Church I deny it nor doth he bring any thing to prove it but his own words sure it is so But I count it false For Jacob visibly blessed Pharaoh Gen. 47. 10. and yet Pharaoh was not of the visible Church When Christ did raise Jairus daughter heal the daughter of the Syrophoenician I conceive they had a visible blessing and yet were not of the visible Church And if it were the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing yet there is neither in the Text nor elsewhere a word to prove it was their duty to admit them to the like blessing by any other than Christ himself and his own laying hands on them Or if it were imagined that Christ intended this should be a Rule to the Disciples for their conferring a like blessing on infants yet that it must be a Rule to successors and if to successors to all Ministers to do it or that they must do it by baptism and not rather as the Bishops did it in Confirmation by laying on of hands hath not the least shadow of proof but rather the contrary is more likely And accordingly Jancerus Concilium Senonense as Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 3. the composers of the Interim as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 16. lib. 2. cap. 68. pag. 451. relate gathered the institution of Confirmation from thence But Mr. B. adds And it is yet
therefore permit the bringing of all to Christ Christ had not told them his design before hand to teach them by these Emblems and when they knew his minde they desisted Answ. They might know Prophets did bless persons even little ones they knew that Matth. 18. 2. Christ had before familiarly used a little childe and so was not averse from them they knew or might know that Christ was the great Prophet that was to come into the world that he made it his work to do good that he did permit all sorts of persons that came for healing or other blessings to come to him and therefore it was their fault to hinder Christ in this design and to hinder any that came to him for his blessing I neither say that his design was onely to teach humility by these as an Emblem nor that they knew or might know what use Christ would make of these infants Mr. Bs. challenge is upon a mistake as if I affirmed that Christ would have those infants brought onely to teach humility by them when the very words he cites are to the contrary I am weary with answering such meer cavils of a man who if he were not set on wrangling might by heeding my words answer himself 5. Saith he If it had been onely for the present design then Christ would have spoke but of those individual infants and have said Suffer those now to come But it appears from the Text 1. that it was not those individuals more than others that the Disciples were offended at or disliked should be brought but the species or those infants because infants 2. And that Christ doth not onely speak against their hindring those individuals but the species and lays them down a rule and command for the future as well as for the present that they should suffer little children to come to him and not forbid them Answ. It is in all the Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes the children then brought and no other though I deny not but this fact and the reason thereof were a rule for the future as well as for the present yet not either for the Apostles or any Successors to lay hands on them or baptize them but for them if any more infants were thus brought to Christs person that his own hands might be layd on them that they should permit it 6. Saith Mr. B. And he doth not command this upon the reason of any private design but because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Answ. Mr. B. still mistakes me as if I had said private design that is a design proper to those infants onely whereas my words were present design which I shew before what it was and thereby it may be easily conceived I meant such a design as tended to shew his Office readiness to do good and interest that infants and such as were like them might have to the Kingdom of Heaven 7. Saith he And where Mr. T. saith It was not from any knowledg they had of their present visible title I answer Who said it was Did Mr. Blake No but it was a thing the Disciples ought to have known that infants are welcom to Christ and that of such is the Kingdom and therefore because of such is his Kingdom they should not be kept from him God will not be much displeased with men for being ignorant of that which they ought not to know Answ. Mr. Blake in his Answer to my letter had said pag. 90. They the infants brought to Christ had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have known and this he gives as the reason why Christ was so much displeased with the Disciples forbidding them to be brought To which my words are rightly opposed Nor is any thing put on Mr. Blake But his own words If Mr. B. will not say that Christs anger was from any knowledg the Apostles had of the infants present visible title then he must acknowledg the Apostles had no knowledg of the visible Church-membership of infants then or visible title to one Church privilege which shews that in Christs Church no infants were then counted visible Church members else these could not but know it Nor is there any thing in the Text that shews that Christ was angry with them for not knowing this nor did this teaching inform them in this nor did Christ admit them as Mr. Blake saith to a Church privilege nor if it were true that the blessing were a Church privilege common to all Church-members yet infants were as capable of baptism as of it sith the institution of baptism is otherwise To me it is a strong presumption that the Apostles understood not Christs words and deeds as importing Church privilege conferred on those infants which did infer a title to baptism as Mr. Blake imagins in that the Apostles did not baptize them which is confessed by some paedobaptists and appears both in that no such thing is enjoyned them by Christ or related as done by them and what was done to them is related as done by Christ himself who did not baptize John 4. 2. and it is said Matth. 19. 15. when he had put his hands on them he departed thence and with him his Disciples as appears by the speeches of them upon occasion of the yong mans conference with Christ which presently followed Now if the Apostles knew not such baptizability of infants there is no likelihood that Christs words or blessing proved such baptizability If they did know it and yet did them not right no doubt Christ would have been more angry for their not baptizing them then for rebuking those that brought them And whereas Mr. B. blesseth Christ for his discovery concerning infants as he construes it I bless God that hath shewed me the frivolousnes of Mr. Bs. arguings and I say of such as are led away with such trifling reasons as the Apostles sayd 1 Cor 14. 38. If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant As for his observation in the close of the chapter it s like the rest For Christs calling his Disciples little children and the Apostles so calling Christians shews love and tendernes but not that infants are visible Church-members no more then Christs calling the same his Lambs and sheep John 21. 15 16 c. shews that sheep and Lambs are visible Church-members Thus much for answer of that chapter of M. B. SECT XVIII The 41. Chapter of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foed about Christs speech of little children Matth. 19. 14. is answered and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated MR. Blake since the publishing of my Postscript to my Apology in reply to his Answer to my letter in his Book intituled Vindic. foed c. 41 43. sect 1. hath published somewhat that is to be further examined He saith They looked upon Christ as it seems as a great Prophet highly in favour with God and such were wont to bless in the name of God and their blessing was highly prized and
in my Apology pag. 6. that I rested wholly on 1 Cor. 7. 14. for many years and that Text Mr. B. cals a full plain Text and Dr. Hammond in effect builds all his proof for infant-baptism upon it and therefore Mr. B. might have perceived his mistake concerning me if he had heeded my books If some Divines have argued weakly for infant-baptism used some unfit phrases and brought some misapplied Scriptures as he saith I am sure Mr. B. had reason to number himself among them if he be not the man who hath in all these outstripped them I wish he had held his resolution of not heaping up many arguments it would have saved me much labor To his words Whatsoever Mr. T. may pretend among the simple I shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high to the Apostles days as there is any sufficient History extant to inform us and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon Popish or heretical grounds I answer 1. That my pretences about the innovation of infant-baptism are not among the simple as he would insinuate but among the most learned for whose examination my allegations are obvious in print 2. That his assertion concerning the antiquity of infant-baptism is most inconsiderate there being nothing in Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Epiphanius and other the most approved Histories and Authors for his assertion And for those be brings the highest is Pope Hyginus whose words he alleged out of his Decree which I conceived had been in his Epistle decretal judged to be counterfeit but Mr. B. in his Praefestinant is morator lets fly at me Sect. 3. for my mistake I confess I have not Blondellus Surius Nicolinus Crab Binius Gratian but Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 5. saith Reliqua Decreta quae huic Episcopo tribuuntur ex Gratiano ad verbum quia prolixa non sunt referemus And then sets down five Decrees on the second of which he notes thus Ex hoc decreto elâ—â—et vanit as harum constitutionum quod falsò prioribus Episcopis Romanis tribuantur Quis enim credat c. Quare manifestum est haec Decreta longo tempore post Hyginum facta in Ecclesiam Dei jam superstitionibus Pontificiis contaminatam introducta esse Hujus farinae sunt proximè sequentia Decreta de rebus frivolis edita of which the last is In catechismo in baptismo in confirmatione unus pâ—trinus fieri potest si necessit as cogat non est tamen consuetudo Romana sed per singulos astus singula suscipiunt Whereby the Reader may perceive the Decree to be but a forgery and that if it were true yet it doth not mention the baptizing of infants sith Gossips were at the Baptism of elder persons though Dr. Hammond say in his Letter pag. 214. Godfathers have place onely in baptizing of Children as may be made appear by instances at the baptizing of some Sâ—xon Kings and otherwise and the Decree it self putting a Gossip in Catechism before a Gossip in Baptism makes it probable not to be meant of a Gossip to an infant baptized And lest it be thought Osiander is alone I will adjoyn the words of Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments first book at the year 175. The like that Telesphorus made them not is to be thought also of the rest not onely his Constitutions but also of the other ancient Biships and Martyrs which followed after him as of Hyginus anno 142. who succeeding him and dying also a Martyr as Volateranus lib. 22. declareth is said or rather feigned to bring in the cream one Godfather and Godmother in Baptism to ordain the dedication of Churches when as in his time so far it was off that any solemn Churches were standing in Rome that unneth the Christians could safely convent in their own houses Likewise the distincting the orders of Metropolitans Bishops and other degrees savour nothing less than of that time Doctor Prideaux one of Mr. Bs. own Authors for this Decree of Pope Hyginus about Gossips though he make mention of it where he speaks of that Pope Compend of History cap. 7. Sect. 3. interr 7. yet after among many of his inquiries this is the third Whether it be likely that these religious Popes in such extreme persecutions had liberty or list to think on making Cardinals or Gossips and introduce a rabble of beggarly Ceremonies And though I were mistaken in calling that decree of Hyginus the Decree in the Epistle yet I think the Authors which censured the decretal Epistles did comprehend the Decrees ascribed to those first Popes among those forged Writings under that name However what I have produced is enough to justifie my speeches in my Praecursor that the Decree ascribed to Pope Hyginus about Gossips is so manifest a forgery that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have alleged so notoriously forged a writing so that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony as by currant consent of Historians assuring us that Hyginus Bishop of Rome did first ordain Godfathers and Godmothers at the baptizing of infants and his questions thereon but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men being more like a brazen faced allegation than that he so censures me for without cause The next of his allegations is Justin Martyr from whom besides the bastard writing of Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos all the rest alleged pag. 156. by Mr. B. is manifestly impertinent and his genuine writing yields a good evidence against the use of infant-baptism as unknown to him as may appear by what is said before Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator says Sect. 3. Seeing you deny nothing in Justin Martyrs words you must yield that it was known to Mothers that their infants were of Gods kingdom and then certainly they were Church-members and known Disciples or Christians To which I reply that I have not Justin Martyr now by me and do doubt whether in that passage of the Epistle ad Zenam Serenum he did mean infants sith the term is children which may be meant of persons who are come to some age capable of understanding and if the words be meant of infants yet it may be very well conceived that the meaning is that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Kingdom of Glory and that not in respect of their present but future estate as when it is said Matth. 5. 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven that is they shall have a great reward in Heaven vers 12. And then it neither proves their present being of Gods visible Kingdom nor that they were Church-members and known Disciples or Christians and to be baptized This testimony for the antiquity of infant-baptism I remember
ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church but the visible is not one Church and the invisible another Church but meerly the same Church under several denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them There was lately a printed sheet brought to my hands intituled The profession of the Church c. which is owned by Mr. Richard Baxter in his Christian concord in the Preface of which are these words And because Ministers cannot well know who are members of the Churches and who not and so must be ignorant of the extent of their charges and duties without an expression of their peoples consent Hence I argue 1. If Ministers cannot know who are members of the Churches and who not without an expression of their peoples consent then they cannot know infants to be members of the Churches who express no consent 2. Then the parents faith upon which they were baptized without their own consent expressed doth not make them visible Church-members for if it did they might know them by their memory and registers that they were Church-members 3. Then they are not rightly baptized by him without their consent 4. Then it is not true which Mr. B. writeth plain Scripture c. pag. 280. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eys Are not Bewdley Kederminster meaning all the people â—lder and yonger c. and England till of latâ— as fully Christs Disciples and so Church-members aâ— the Jews were in Covenant with God and so Church-members which if true Mr. B. may know who at Kederminster are Church-members without their expressed consent even all the inhabitants and that his charge is extended to all 5. Then the gift of visible Church-membership is repealed â—ith in the Common wealth of Israel all the posterity of Israel were Church-members 6. By his new course of distinguishing the professing and subscribing parioshiâ—ers of Kederminster as Church-members from the rest as not his Church-members he gathers a Church out of a Church and separates some Disciples from others and doth himself make a like division in his Church though not in so justifiable a way as he chargeth so fiercely on me and others Which I conceive to be little less than a retractation of his own tenet about infants visâ—â—e Church-membership and clearing of his opposites Lastly by Mr. Bs. determinations there is no certain way to know a particular infant to be a visible Church-member For in his determinations there is no resolution nor according to his grounds do I think can be given a certain resolution whether the parent be such a one to whom the Covenant is whether he have that faith which may intitle his childe to visible Church-membership whether the immediate parents engagement be necessary or a remote parents engagement be sufficient whether the engagement must be open in the face of the Congregation or it be sufficient that it be done privately when it must be at Baptism or at some other time whether it need not be as oâ—â— as he hath children to be admitted visible Church-members whether the baptizer may account him a visible Church-member whose parents are dead absent unable to come or to express their engagement and so baptize him which with many other doubtâ— would â—â—â—aâ—d the course of Ministers and people in their profane infant sprinkling if they did not with a blinde obedience rest on Mr. Bs. unproved dictates but searched after the truth considerately and impartially But I pass on 6. Saith Mr. B. hence I further argue thus Iâ— Christ were much displeased with his Disciples for keeping infants from him then he took it as a part of their revealed duty that they should not forbid them But the former is true therefore the later Whence I further argue if it were the Disciples known or revealed duty not to forbid them to come to Christ then they must needs take it also for a revealed truth that infants in specie and not those numerical onely should not be forbidden to come for they could not know that those individuals should be admitted but by knowing that infants should be admitted But c. Answ. The conclusion of the former argument may be granted and yet the sequeâ—e of the later argument denied For they might know it either by some particular sign from Christ or some particular instinct of the Spirit that it was their duty to permit those infants to come to Christ and yet not permit any more But saith Mr. B. Yea further 7. If it were the Disciples revealed duty to admit infants to come to Christ for this very reason because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then it was no secret but a revealed truth that of such was the Kingdom of Heaven But the former is true For Christ would not be angry so much with them for not knowing that which was neuer revealed on for not admitting them when they had no means to know them to have right of admittance The consequence is evident the â—â—forâ— and so 〈◊〉 follow 〈◊〉 that if it were then a revealed truth that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then they were visible members of the Church For that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven though it be not known of the individuals do visibly belong to the Church as I think none dare deny Answ. 1. According to their exposition who understand of such onely those that are like little children in affection and disposition and not of those particular little children then brought much more according to their exposition who by of such understand these individual infants and no other they might know those infants were to be admitted and yet have no knowledg of an universal rule for admittingâ— other infants at other times 2. But be it granted that not onely of those individuals but also of other infants is the Kingdom of Heaven yet I deny they were visible Church-members And for his proof I dare deny that which he fâ—ndly thinks â—â—nâ— dare deny that they that are known to belong to Heaven 〈◊〉 visibly belong to the Church Abraham and 〈◊〉 and Jâ—â—â—â— are known to belong to Heaven yet I do not conceive do visibly belong to the Church And the same is true of all the spirits of the Just made perfect of elect infants â—â—born Jâ—â—â—s unceâ—led c. I know none â—â—iung to the visible Church but such as sensibly have professed faith in Christ. Amâ—s Med. Th. l. 1. â— â—1 sect 24 25 26 27 〈◊〉 militant visibilis â—â—su sc. vel sensu externo 〈◊〉 praeâ—ect 〈◊〉 Eccl. pag. 246 Ecclesia aliquando denominatur abâ—iis qâ—◠〈◊〉 quaeque â—n sensum incurrunt Piscat â—â—â—or â—oâ— 19. 10. visiâ—ilâ— appellatur quatâ—ruâ—â—erâ—â—s hâ—bet noâ—â—â— in oculo◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. B. himself Praefest in Morator sect 11. By visible I mâ—an thâ—â— which is discernible by the understanding medianâ—â— sensu Therefore that sort of men that are known to belong to
the flesh that is being the childe of a believer by natural generation but that he deduceth their casting out of the Church from it and that the birth after the flesh is taken in the worser part as that which bringeth bondage not Church estate or Christian liberty nor doth birth after the flesh respect the descent from a believer but the bond-woman and that this birth is in the Antitype allegoâ—ical and yet the Adverbs then and now are Adverbs of time and a history is related in both parts of the 29. v. of Gal. 4. Generally interpreters take the words even so it is now as meant of the Jews which cannot be true literally for they were not born after the flesh that is of bond-women but of free-women which were true Israelites or daughters of Abraham as Mr. B. here confesseth Mr. Bl. proceeds Secondly he sayth that I say such are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth they persecute the Church and are cast out I desire the Reader to consider if this had any truth in it whether it hold with greater strength for me or him They are cast out and therefore they were in is my Argument they are cast out and therefore were never in sayth Mr. T. 2. The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out Ishmael was in the family when he persecuted though afterwards he was cast out of the family these are in the Church though in case they continue persecution they shall in fine be cast out now in present they have a being in it Answ. It is true that this was my second Exception against his gross perverting of the Apostles words even so it is now as if the meaning were that by virtue of being born after the flesh some infants to wit those that are born of a believing parent are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth 1. They persecute which cannot be meant of infants 2. In that they are born after the flesh they persecute the Church therefore he ascribes no privilege to them as accruing to them by the birth after the flesh but a cursed practice 3. That they persecute the Church therefore while born after the flesh they were not in the bosom of the Church that is the Church Christian visible 4. That they are cast out therefore not in the Church To the two first of these nothing is answered the consequence of the third is denied he supposeth they did persecute the Church and yet remained in which is most palpably false For this being apparently meant of the unbelieving Jews that sought righteousness by the Law and acknowledged so by Interpreters it is notoriously false that they were in the bosom of the Christian Church while they did persecute the Church yea Saul himself was not after his conversion taken in presently to communion with the Disciples at Jerusalem till they knew that he ceased to be a persecutor Acts 9. 26. so that the words even so it is now expounded as Mr. Bls. words intimate even so now by virtue of being born after the flesh that is by natural generation born of a believing parent there are some even infants that are in the bosom of the Christian visible Church as members of it and remaining in it do persecute the Church are so false and the Exposition so unsavoury that it is a wonder to me that neither Mr. Bl. nor the Prefacers to his Book take care to have it left out That which Mr. Bl. answers to the fourth thing in this exception is of like stamp 1. He sayth It follows not they were cast out therefore never in But my Argument is this they were by reason of their being born after the flesh cast out therefore not for this reason in the bosom of the Church 2. That it follows they are cast out therefore they were in which consequence I deny being understood of the Church Christian visible and the particular persons who are sayd to be cast out for they are sayd to be cast out not from what they had but from what they might have had or others had as Matth. 8. 12. it is sayd The children of the Kingdom shall be east out of the Kingdom of Heaven v. 11. in which others were and they not into outer darkness He sayth also The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out but mentions a command of casting them out To which I replied As if Gods dictum were not factum if they were not cast out why doth the Apostle allege that Text My meaning was Gods speech of the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael was not a bare command but such as included a sentence and decree of God which he took course to execute and that the Apostle allegeth the Text not to prove a duty but to shew an event or fact of God For as the Apostle allegeth it the casting out is of the legal covenant and the children of it those that desired to be under the Law and their casting out is their rejecting from the inheritance of righteousness and being Gods people now this could not be any mans duty but Gods act determining and accordingly accomplishing this sentence that righteousness shall not be by the Law nor Justitiaries his people and therefore it is most absurd in Mr. Bl. to determine that some by virtue of being born after the flesh have a right to be in the bosom of the Church Christian when the Apostle determines they are for this reason rejected or cast out I had thirdly excepted against Mr. Bl. as making those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed wherein he joyns with Arminius in calling them Abrahams seed who sought justice in the Law Mr. Bl. Vindic. Foed cap. 40. sayth I joyn with Arminius and that he follows Mr. Bayne For sayth he I interpret it of a natural seed that inherit outward privileges and never reach the birth of the spirit so Mr. Baines interprets it the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham Baines on Ephes. 1. pag. 140. quarto Answ. It is true Mr. Bayne hath those words but yet he excepteth pag. 139. against Arminius as I do for calling legal justitiaries who are meant by they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed For there he thus speaks Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken It is true that Mr. Baines so interprets the term children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bl. hath cited him which place he meant by here but not the teâ—m he that is born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. yea pag. 138. he saith For though children of the flesh in some other Scripture meaning Gal. 4. 29. doth note out justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here Rom. 9. 8. the literal