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
except I have Mr. Bls. heifer to plough with Sure I am this kinde of crimination which Mr. Bl. useth is very unsuitable to a clear and solid disputant thus by dark flirts and quips to abuse me But I think it best to slight his charge presuming intelligent men will be little moved with it As for his position the terms being ambiguous and especially the term in covenant being used as I often complain in such variety of senses or rather sometimes non-sense by Paedobaptists that it seems to be used by them to elude rather than to inform it may be either granted or denied as the terms are explained and if this did occasion me to take time to answer it I did therein prudently and if after two or ten years my answers be various they are so upon due considerations For present I grant those infants if they were infants mentioned Matth. 19. 14. were in the covenant of saving grace stood in relation to Christ as chosen in him and in that respect bare his name as his breâ—heren were of his invisible people not as heathens in their present state without Christ being given to him nor aliens from the Common-wealth of the Israel of God the invisible Church of the elect nor strangers from the covenant of promise that is the covenant of promise commensurate with election of grace and this I grant to be evident of those particular persons if not by their free admission to Christ yet by the reason by him given it being supposed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is meant of them as well as of those that were like them in humility But if the position be understood of being in covenant either by their own act of coveâ—anting or that which is called by Paedobaptists in their non-sense or proper gibberish the outward covenant or that it be meant that they stood in relation to Christ as visible members of the Christian church in their present state while they were infants I deny it to be true or that it is evident by their free admission by Christ and the reason by him given Mr. Bls. fifth position is They were admitted upon a common right equally belonging to all infants of covenanting parents and not by virtue of any extraordinary privilege peculiar to them and not common to other This is plain saith he 1. By the general admission which he gives to infants on this occasion Suffer little children come to me and as Mr. T. more than once observes Extraordinarium non facit regulam communem here is a general Rule all have admission and therefore there is nothing extraordinary 2. It was such a right that the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood as plainly appears by Christs sore displeasure conceived against them for forbidding their admission to him and that must be a known right and not secret Answ. 1. There is not a word in the Text to prove that they were admitted upon any right to their admission as due to them and which might be claimed for them but they were admitted out of grace 2. There is nothing in the Text to prove they were the children of covenanting parents or that they were admitted out of any respect at all to their parents state whatever it were As for Mr. Bls. reasons To the 1. I say The words are a Command onely for those little children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suffer the little children to wit them brought to come to me nor doth it appear by any after instance of Christ or his Apostles that this was understood as a general rule that all should have admission 2. Were it granted that this rule of Christ did reach to others besides those then brought yet there is nothing in the Text to prove this rule of admission to be onely of infants of covenanting parents or to these or any other by reason of right from their covenanting parents Yea rather if any right be intimated it is the personal right of the infants for of such is the Kingdom of God 2. It is true the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood they were to be admitted But that this was the reason why they ought to know they were to be admitted because of their known right is imagined but not proved And how or for what reasons they might know they were to be admitted is shewed above in answer to Mr. B. Mr. Bl. adds Mr. T. indeed says They were not admitted out of any known right common to others but a perculiar privilege as being elected for which he quotes Piscator when as he hath heard and replies nothing that Piscator syllogistically concludes the contrary Answ. I said not they were admitted out of a peculiar privilege as being elected nor for this did I quote Piscator and therefore in my animadversions in my postscript I made no reply to Mr. Bl. in this thing My words in my Examen pag. 146 147. were these 4. Let it be granted they were the infants of believers and that it is said of these is the Kingdom of God it may be as Piscator observes referred not to their present estate as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is believers and justified but that they were elect persons and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God in which I do not at all assign the reason why the little children were to be admitted to come to Christ nor do I quote Piscator for it and therefore Mr. Bl. misâ—ecites my words but shew how it might be true that of those infants was the Kingdom of God yet in their present estate they neither believers nor justified Against which Piscator is so far from concluding syllogistically as Mr. Bl. says that disputing against the Lutherans affirming infants to be believers because of Christs words Matth. 19. 14. in his Observe 11. out of that v. he sayth thus Deinde etiamsi ponatur sermonem hic de infantibus esse tamen non potest hinc certò concludi illos praeditos esse â—ide Etâ—nim infantium potest esse regnum coeâ—orum etiamsi non credant dummodo sint electi which are the effect of my words And for the rest that follows in Mr. Bl. about Christs design and the Disciples duty to know it and their sin in being ignorant of it there is answer before in the answer to Mr. B. Nor is there a word in my writing that tends to this that either they knew or were bound to know the election of those infants or that Christ was angry with them for not knowing it I have often said it was either because they heeded not some particular intimation of his minde concerning those infants or some general truth concerning Christs Office and his readiness to do good to all sorts of persons as there was opportunity offered from which he ought not to be hindered by them I do not confess as Mr. Bl. sayth of me that elect infants might be baptized were
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
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
saith thus First for the point of will worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed must expresly be set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case pag. 205. This about Infantbaptism touches but a circumstance of age Answ. T is true the main question is whether infants are to be baptized But they that deny it do so not meerly because of their age but because they appear not ordinarily to be disciples of Christ or believers or capable of these in act Their admission by baptism is questioned because of their nondiscipleship not precisely by reason of their age Mr. B. in his Appendix to his plain scripture proof c. pag. 302. And that in so material a thing as Infantbaptism and so about the proper subject of so great an ordinance and if you judge Infantbaptism a meer circumstance you are much mistaken If the question about Infantbaptism touch but a circumstance of age then the question about Infant-communion toucheth but a circumstance of age and if men may without precept or example in the new Testament of Infant baptism be acquitted from willworship because it toucheth but a circumstance of age by the same reason they may be acquitted from willworship who give Infants the Communion because it toucheth but a circumstance of age Our Lord Christ and his Apostles having determined who are to be baptized it is manifest willworship or humane Invention to baptize others than he and they have appointed and it is so much the worse because it is not onely about the proper subject of so great an ordinance but also the main end and use of baptism by altering of which the ordinance is quite changed into another thing and the Church of God exceedingly corrupted But letting that passe admission of Infants into the Church Mr. B. saith is fully determined in the old Testament if he mean not the Christian visible Church he speaks ambiguously and if his words be meant of the Christion visible Churah of which onely is the question then it is as fully determined in the old Testament that Infants should be admitted into the visible Church Christian as most things in the Bible as that God made heaven and earth idols are vanities fornication a sin c. But surely none will believe Mr. B. in this but he that is so simple as to believe every word Me thinks he should not have said such a word at Bewdly where he saith in his History were many antient stayd Christians that would not as children be tâ—st up and down and carried too and fro with every wind of doctrine except he presumed they would take what he said as true without trial Formerly this was the received doctrine that Baptism was the sacrament of admission into the Christian Church that Baptism and the Lords supper were the sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ himself that Circumcision and the Passeover and the whole Jewish Church policy are abrogated which if true it is very bold to say that Infants are to be admitted into the visible Church Christian is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible when there is not a word in all the old Testament about the age or way of admission into the visible Church Christian. But where doth Mr. B. find this admission so fully determined in the old Testament In the dispute at Bewdly he denied the precept of Circumcision to be the ordinance of visible church-membership And in my Praecursor Sect. 6 I say as yet I can fiâ—d no such law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-mem-bership save what is injoyned concerning Circumcision To w th he replies in his Praefestinantis morator What not yet And yet dare you boast so confidently of your prepared confutation yet can you find no law that made women Church-members nor the uncircumcised males in the wilderness O the power of prejudice Whereto I say though I boast not of my prepared confutation but speak of it modestly yet I find no cause to be lesse confident of my prepared confutation because of these frivolous interogations of Mr. B. It is not the power of prejudice which is the reason why I find not a law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership but because I do not see or read of law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership besides that of Circumcision either upon my own search or Mr. Bs. or others shewing I asked once a Preacher at Bewdley where it was he told me it was Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. I told him I find a relation of a fact of a thing that was done but not a word of any law ordinance precept or command determining thus it shall be this shall be done c. or any other form of speech that imports a law ordinance precept statute or command to make female infants visible Churchmembers much lesse do I find an appointment law ordinance that some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church which Mr. B. should have proved to be unrepealed according to his assertion cap. 5. 26. except the law of Circumcising infants And therefore my confutation of Mr. Bs. argument cap. 5. might be sufficient if I only denied such an ordinance or appointment till it be shewed I do confess my weakness in my answering at Bewdley in that I permitted Mr. B. to run on in the proof of an ordinance unrepealed afore he had shewed me where that ordinance is but I perceived therein what I feared still that I should not in a verball dispute observe what was necessary to be heeded But I may say with truth Mr. B. either understands not what is meant by a law ordinance appointment liable to repeal or still binding or loves to pervert words from the genuine sense as he did the word accuse or else he is unwilling to speak plainly who being provoked to shew in what text of Scripture that pretended law ordinance appointment is doth not yet shew it And for his assertion here it exceeds all faith that infant admission into the Church meaning the visible Church Christian should be as fully determined in the old Testament at most things in the Bible But wherever Mr. B. imagines it is fully determined in the old Testament the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith chap. 25. Art 4. allege but one text out of the old Testament viz. Gen. 17. 7. 9. for admission of Infants by Baptism into the visible Church and if Mr. M. their Champion in this Point expresse their minds they deduce Infant-baptism from this principle All Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of
c. restraining it to the Infants of members joined in a Church gathered after the congregational way as it is called Mr. Cawdrey Mr. Blake Mr. Rutherfurd and others extend it farther master B. Plain scripture proof c. chap. 29. part 1. pag. 101. to all whosoever they be if they be at a believers dispose And both sides pretend analogy which being uncertain Mr. Ball after much debate about this difference as distrusting analogy determines thus in his reply to the answer of the new England Elders to the 9. posit posit 3. and 4 pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ which is as much as to say whatsoever their analogy or resemblance be we must look to the Institution therefore the Institution of each Sacrament must be our rule in the use of them not analogy and analogy is not sufficient to guide us without Institution and to shew that analogy serves not turn of it self to determine who are to be baptised he adds and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must assirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Which how they cut the sinews of the argument from Circumcision to Baptism without wrong to master Ball is shewed in my Apology Sect. 13. pag. 57. Mr. M. in his Desence pag. 83. Mr. Blake pag. 74 75. of his answer to my letter seem to deny that Paedobaptists do frame an addition to Gods worship from such analogy the contrary whereof is manifest from the passages cited before But Mr. Blake over and above pag. 75. sets down three cautions which being observed then this kind of arguing from analogy and proportion is without any such pretended danger The insufficieny of which cautions being shewed in my Postscript to the Apology Sect 17 pag. 143. I conceive it unnecessary to repeat my words which the Reader may here find and the vindication of them from what Mr. Blake opposeth in his vindiciae foederis chap 42. follows in the nex Section 4. I argued that if this way of making rules binding men consciences in meer positive worship from analogy of the ceremonies or rites of the Old Testament without institution in the New be valid then our Christian liberty from the Ceremonial Law is made void For by this way of determining things as of Gods appointment by our conceived analogy al or a great part of the Ceremonial Law may be put on our necks under pretence of analogy and so the fruit of Christs purchase of Christian liberty lost and we in vain exhorted to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free For as Chillingworth once told Knot the Jesuit if the Pope be made sole Judge of Centroversies infallible Expositor of Scripture it will be in effect all one as if he were allowed to make a new Scripture and Articles of faith and tyranny may be introduced as well by arbitrary expounding as well as by arbitrary making of laws so in this case the bondage of Moses his law may be put on our necks not onely by those that say it binds in the letter but also by those that say Gods commands about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us in the analogy and proportion 5. This argument hath strength from the sad experience the Church hath formerly and of late had in yielding to these reasonings from analogy in the many Canons of Popes and Prelates heavily loading Gods Church with rites and decrees about them imposed from analogy of the Ceremonial Laws of Moses The Constitutions of Popes and Canons of Prelates and the books of the maintainers of them expounding and defending their rituals and liturgies are full of them to wit rites about Priests their Orders Garments Dues Festivals Sacraments Votaries Religious houses and such like drawn from Mosaical Laws It is a common complaint of Protestants and Antiprelatists that in imitation of the Jews under pretence of analogy a new named Iudaism hath been brought into the Christian Church and the reforming of them like Hercules his labour in clensing Augias his stable Some I have named in my Examen part 3. s. 9. more I might In the Augustan Confession among the Articles of abuses in the chapter of the Ecclesiastick power it s the general complaint that Popish writers made a worship in the New Testament like the Levitical I may use Mr. Bs words in his Appendix to plain Scripture-proof c. pag. 302. And indeed if all that is not contrary to Scripture customs and that mans vain wit can find reasonable from Scripture must be admitted and that upon equal authority with Scripture if they do but take it for a tradition Apostolical Then 1. it will set mans wit a work to make God a worship or judge of the currantness of it according to his reason and one man will think it reasonable and another not 2. And what a multitude of Ceremonies will this admit into the Church to the burthening of mens consciences and the polluting of Gods worship Is not this the door that the body of Popish trash came in at and the Argument that hardneth them in it and hindereth their reformation to this day And if you open this Gap what a multitude of fopperies will rush in Certainly by this means the Gospel hath been shadow'd and repressed no stint either hath been or could be put to the inundation of such impositions as long as liberty hath been given under pretence of analogy with Jewish rites to add to the worship and discipline of the new Testament but it hath happened according to Austins Complaint Epist. 119. to Ianuarius that the state of the Jewish Church under Divine precepts hath been more tolerable than the Christian burdened with humane presumptions Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. th 15. Romanenses in suis ceremoniis partim imitati sunt Gentes partim Iudaeos th 17. Ceremoniae hujusmodi tollunt discrimen illud quod Deus voluit esse inter Iudaeos Christianos quia paedagogiam Iudaicae similem habent 6. If such Arguments from Analogy of Jewish rites abrogated may be valid to impose on mens consciences things about the worship of God then Popes and Prelates are not only unblamable and justifiable in so doing but also Protestants and Non-conformists will be unjustifiable in no yielding to them but opposing them Mr. Church Divine warrant of Infant-bapt pag. 49. in answer to these three latter reasons speaks thus Arguing from the Jewish types for the Substance of those shadowes tends neither to an introducement of Judaism nor yet to a justification of the Quisquilian toyes of the Papists for it is neither arguing for
those believers had signs following them verse 17. Answ. The rule is disciples by profession are to be baptized to which is equipollent believers by profession I say not that believers only who are such as those Mark 16. 16. are to be baptized by us But yet comparing Mark 16. 15 16. with Mat. 28. 19. I gather that a disciple and believer are terms equipollent and so it helps me to understand the term disciple as answerable to the term believer And though by reason of the matter predicated Mark 16. 16. the believer there is only a true believer yet the term often is given to believers only by profession and we find such warrantably baptized and that is enough for our direction though we are to require more yet we are not to forbear baptism till we know there is more We acknowledge only true believers have right before God to baptism but in the face of the Church believers by profession have right to baptism and are to be taken by us for true believers upon their profession till they be discovered to be otherwise As for verse 17. it doth not say these or some of these signs shall follow every of them that believe but they are true if they followed some of them that believe sith the terms being indefinite in matter contingent the Proposition is true if onely particular Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti aequipollet particulari say Logicians But there is an objection ad hominem against my self that I have said that if I knew an infant were actually sanctified c. I would baptize him if so then an infant is not excluded out of the institution Answ. I grant that an infant barely as an infant is not excluded out of the institution but as ordinarily not known to be a disciple or believer If an infant were known to be a disciple or believer I would baptize him as I would one who having his tongue cut out who is known to be a believer otherwaies But then I have added that this would be upon extraordinary manifestation onely and so not according to ordinary rule and therefore justifies onely that extraordinary fact not the ordinary practice of infant-baptism which hath no rule ordinary or extraordinary But then saith Mr. M. page 215. shew us your extraordinary â—ule Answ. When I do thus or challenge this I shall in the mean time it is enough that my concession doth not infringe my argument against baptizing infants ordinarily without ordinary rule Mr. M. hath yet another exception in his Sermon page 44. That no other are mentioned to be baptized but disciples or believers because a new Church was to be constituted and then all were to be baptized upon profession of faith after the children came in by their right by vertue of the Covenant Ref. 1. when I come to examine Mr. Ms. Conclusions I shall shew that there is no such Covenant as to give right to believers infants to be baptized yea that title to the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision and therefore this is a vain pretence 2. He assigns that for a reason why no other were baptized which was not a reason For in the Jewish Church which was already constituted and which Christ did join himself to and to whose children they say did belong the Covenant yet while other were baptized all the time of John and Christs Ministery on earth no one infant was appointed to be baptized no not those infants Mark 10. which Christ blessed and which were if Paedobaptists say true believers infants in Covenant 3. It is a vain pretence that there is no mention of baptized infants because they had no right till their parents were converted For neither when they were converted is there any mention of the infants baptism 4. The institution Mat. 28. 19. expounded by the practice of John Baptist c. is the standing rule for Churches at first planting and after increasings nor can any other rule be produced distinct from this and therefore neither at first conversion nor after settlement of Churches are any to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they be disciples of Christ or believers by profession SECT VIII The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake c. against the order of teaching afore baptizing of Mr. M. Mr. Hussey that baptizing is discipling are refelled AGainst the argument from the order of teaching first and then baptizing it was excepted that it is said Mark 1. 4. John did baptize and preach which objection in my Examen was removed by the words of Beza par 4. s. 1. To which I add that the reason is manifest from the text why the one was put after the other not because he did baptize any afore he had preached but because Mark having expressed his baptism it was needfulhe should shew the difference between Johns baptism and the Jewish or Phasaical baptism To this Mr. M. returns thus much Christs order is say you teaching should go before baptizing is not that the same with this That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized To which I only say 1. That the arguments are not the same as I made them the first being taken from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the other from the order of teaching afore baptizing 2. However I take that which Mr. M. grants that it is the same to teach and to make disciples by preaching before baptizing But Mr. Cobbet just vindic part 2. ch 3. sect 2 allegeth something against this argument He grants some things in this order of Christ are perpetual but he will not have all to be presidentiall to all Churches and times because it is said Mar. 16. 17. in the same speech that miraculous signs should follow them that believe But if this were good then the rule should only hold while such gifts remain which no churches now have and so he must fall into the opinion that makes water-baptism a temporary ordinance and those things which he grants perpetual as viz. preaching the Gospel before baptism is to be administred by such as preach discipled inchurched persons are to be baptized that in founding churches the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to church estate that baptism is with water applyed to the persons baptized and that into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost must be temporary as well as teaching before baptizing If the one be perpetual notwithstanding this reason so is the other and presidential to all churches and times But saith Mr. Cobbet there is a distinction to be made in baptizing at the gathering of Churches and when they are gathered the order must be observed at the former not the later Answ. 1. If it was to be so at first gathering of churches why did not those in New England observe it then when they first gathered their churches surely they were not rightly gathered for want of baptism if this be the
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
referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
more considerable that all the three former Evangelists make full mention of these passages of Christ and therefore it is evident that they were not taken for small circumstantials but Doctrines of moment for the Churches information They are recorded also in Matth. 18. 2 3 4 c. Matth. 19. 13 14. Luke 9. 47. Luke 18. 16 17. I desire any tender conscienced Christian that is in doubt whether infants should be admitted members of the visible Church and would fain know what is the pleasure of Christ in this thing to reade over the Texts impartially and considerately and then bethink himself whether it be more likely that it will please Christ better to bring or solemnly admit infants into the Church or to shut them out and whether these words of Christ so plain and earnest will not be a better plea at Judgment for our admitting infants than any that ever the Anabaptists brought will be to them for refusing them Answ. Mr. B. wanting proof fals here to his Rhetorick which elsewhere he falsly chargeth on me as my fault but is indeed the chief part of his Book and prevails much with the most of Readers But it is the property of childish persons to be affrighted with such mormo's I grant that the passages of Christ were by the Evangelists taken not for small circumstantials but Doctrines of moment for the Churches information yet not teaching infants visible Church-membership and baptism What ever Christian I be I have read over the Texts impartially and considerately as I think this and other writings shew and I do declare in the presence of God that these passages do confirm me in this truth that it is not the will of Christ that infants should be baptized because he neither baptized nor appointed these to be baptized and that the words of Christ here are so impertinent that they are more likely to be a plea against infant baptizers who on such weak conjectures go against the plain institution of Christ Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. 16. and the constant use of the Apostles and first ages And I do further declare that on my most serious studies I do resolve notwithstanding the evasions they bring that the plea they make hence for infant baptism and that which is alleaged of their being Disciples visible Church-members in the Covenant doth as well tie them to admit them to the Lords supper as to baptism and that in refusing to admit them to baptism we have as good a plea and better at Judgment then they have in refusing to admit them to the Lords Supper Nor is it to me any other than a sad sign either of injudiciousness or slothfulnes in searching after the truth or prejudice or adhering to mens sayings out of reverence of their persons or faction or some such like evil quality both in Ministers and people even those of tender consciences that they still retain so gross an abuse as infant baptism is upon such weak reasons as they do and neglect yea and oppose the baptism of believers so manifestly Commanded by Christ and practised by his Apostles But I must follow Mr. B. But what saith Mr. T. against this why 1. He saith it was some extraordinary blessing to them that Christ intended Apol. p. 149. Answ. 1. it was a discovery of their title to the Kingdom of Heaven It was such an extraordinary blessing that included the ordinary If extraordinary blessing theâ— much more ordinary 2 It was such as the Disciples should have known that these should be admitted to or else Christ would not have been displeased Answ. It is true I give this reason why I conceive that of such included those infants as conceiving from the circumstances of the thing that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them and declaration concerning them And in my Examen pag. 147. I say Christs action in this business is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therfore yeilds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing infants by the ordinary Ministery no more than Christs whipping buyers out of the Temple though related by the four Evangelists for an ordinary practise answerable thereto Now this is not denied by Mr. B. But he says it was such an extraordinary blessing as included the ordinary if extraordinary blessing then much more ordinary But 1. these things are said without proof 2. Their falshood is shewed and the rest is answered before He adds But Mr. T. saith Apol. pag. 151. That the reason of Christs anger was their hindring him in his design not the knowledg they had of their present visible Title this is but a dream To which I answer 1. Mr. T. is as bold to speak of Christs thoughts without Book and to search the Searcher of hearts as if he were resolved to make Christs meaning be what he would have it 2. What Design was it that Christ had in hand Was it any other than the discovery of his mercy to the species of infants and to those among others and a presenting them as a Patern to his followers and to teach his Church humility and renovation and to leave them an assurance against Anabaptists that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him Answ. 1. There was no such boldness in my speech as Mr. B. rashly and like a calumniator chargeth me with but such as must be granted true if we conceive Christ to have acted as a rational being that propounds an end or design in his actings 2. The last of the designs Mr. B. mentions assuring that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him meaning by not baptizing them is his figment His design I knew without searching Christs heart immediately by reading his facts which shew his ends to be 1. the blessing those infants 2. Teaching Doctrine concerning such 3. Shewing himself thereby the great Prophet of his Church and bestower of blessings 3. Saith Mr. B. How did the Disciples hinder Christs design Not by hindring him immediately but by rebuking those that brought the infants 4. If this were no fault in them why should Christ be displeased and much displeased at it And how could it be their fault to hinder people from bringing infants to Christ if they might not know that they ought to be admitted And could they know of Christs private intents and designs Were there but this one consideration hence to be urged I duâ—st challenge Mr. T. to answer as far as modesty would permit a challenge that is if Christ had intended onely that humility or docibleness should be commended from these infants as an Emblem to his Disciples then it could be none of their fault to forbid bringing of them to Christ for how could they know what use Christ would make of them or by what Emblem he would teach them or when he would do it All the creatures in the world may be Emblems of some good and must they
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
shift off the objection that Christ appointed not those infants to be baptized he allegeth that Christ did after solemnly appoint it at his ascension and since then it ought to be done which intimates that infants were not to be baptized before but after the ascension But 1. The appointment and practise of baptism was before if not as solemn and the same use and order of it and therefore this reason is of no force why others should be baptized after more than these before the ascension 2. It will follow that Jews infants were not to be baptized till after the ascension of Christ which overthrows his and other Paedobaptists argument about the seal and Covenant which if of any validity prove infant baptism as well before the ascension as after 3. It is false that Christ at his ascension appointed infant baptism any more than before the commission of Christ and the Apostles practise shew the contrary Therefore I deny his argment in the words set down as being without proof or shew of it Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants advocate ch 18 hath these words St. John addeth ch 21. 21. And there are also many other things which Jesus did which are not written amongst which for ought appears to the contrary the baptizing of these infants might be one of them wherein he runs to the Popish plea for their unwritten traditions and forgets that besides what I have alleged before to shew those infants were not baptized there appears something to the contrary out of John 4. 1 2. where it is said that Jesus baptized not but his Disciples and therefore the baptizing of those Infants could not be one of the things which Jesus did though not written John 21. 21. His argument they were capable of a blessing therefore of baptism hath been often denied and answered before There came to my hands also the Exercitation of Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in which ch 10. he terms Antipaedobaptism denying infants with scorn a little water and after this Text Matth. 19. 13 14. if there were no more will fly in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of infants and their baptism To which I say it shews too much youthfull rashness uâ—fiâ— for a Teacher of a Church either to call Antipaedobaptists contemners of infants and their baptism and their denying infants baptism which they do for ought he knows out of tender conscience of not profaning Christs ordinance an act of scorn and to speak of the Texts flying in their consciences who know that he had more reason to expect the flying of this Text in his conscience who in this as he doth in the rest of his pamphlet makes the objection against his urging it for infant baptism so as that he might put it off with a slight answer For whereas Antipaedobaptists object if Christ hinted their right to baptism why did he neither baptze them nor appoint them to be baptized by his Apostles Mr. Sidenham leaves out the later part of the objection and answers 1. He baptizeth none 2. He did that which was an ordinance usually in those primitive times administred after baptism and equal to it in dignity and so we may argue from this to baptism either inclusively or à majori from the greater he did such acts to them as are equivalent if not supereminent But doth Mr. Sidenham indeed think such petty arguings which he knows not how to form in a Logick way but in pathetick Rhetorick likely to â—errify our consciences so much when he himself dares not positively assert that the laying on of Christs hands did include and presuppose baptism yea he acknowledgeth it to have been extraordinary and for his way of proving à majori he either is ignorant in Logick or else might understand that an argument à majori is not thus there is conferred on such a one a greater thing therefore the less Christs blessing therefore right to baptism For then the argument were good Christ blessed the infants which is the greater therefore he gave them the Lords supper or made them Apostles or gave them the gift of tongues which are the less But an argument à majori is à magis probabili and so it is not more probable that Christ would have them baptized than that he would bless them sith they were not meet subjects of the one as of the other There is nothing else in that chapter but what hath answer before this is enough to abate the insolency of this Scribler SECT XX. The practice of infant-baptism is not proved Acts 16. 15. by baptizing a houshold against Mr. M. Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Cook Mr. Sidenham Mr. Fuller ANother Text to prove the practise of infant baptism is Acts 16. 15. and the mention of baptizing housholds elsewhere From whence Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 40. though the Assembly leave it out Confess of faith ch 18. art 4. would gather examples of the new administration taking place just as the old and so the practise of infant baptism by good consequence To which I answered in my Examen at large pag. 138. c. 1. That the new administration is much different from the old to wit baptism from Circumcision 2. That the practise of baptism in all the Evangelists is set down of singular persons 3. That the practise in the Acts of the Apostles is differently set down sometimes of singular persons sometimes of a City sometimes of families 4. Where housholds are said to be baptized there is no mention of an infant and the circumstances with other places do shew that Luke doth understand onely the believers of the house What Mr. M. replied here to doth yield so much as shews there is no good consequence in this Argument Housholds were baptized therefore infants sith he saith It may be granted that a house is sometimes taken for the grown persons in that house And what else he speaks that is to the point is briefly answered in my Apology pag. 100. And in my Postscript sect 19. I have sufficiently answered Mr. Blake his arguing from housholds being the precedent of baptizing and what he saith vind foed pag. 416. is answered before in this part of the Review sect 6. Dr. Homes in his Animadv on my Exercit. ch 8. pag. 71. tels us that the Syriak in the story Acts 16. 33. renders it he was baptized and all the childern of his house and sure enough a son of eight days old is a son And if sons of the house then some sons of the Father of the house But he might consider that the same Syriak renders v. 32. they spake the word with him and with all the sons of his house which cannot be said of infants Nor is it true that the Doctor saith that the sons of the house are the sons of the Father of the house For as Tremelius in his note sayth it is an Hebraism in which the son of the house is all one with the inhabitants
have told him that he makes two contradistinct species of birth that both cannot be incident to one man no more than a man be a brute beast or a brute beast a bird when it is plain that here is not a distribution of a genus into several species but a distribution of a subject according to its several adjuncts of which I give several instances Answ. I sayd in my Postscript that I not orely make birth after the flesh and after the spirit contradistinct but also contrary Contradistinct species may be incident to the same person the same man may bâ— loâ—g and broad just and temperate but not contrary as white and black just and unjust Birth distributed into birth after the flesh and after the spirit must needs be a genus or an equivocal term it cannot be any subject either quod or quo it being neither substance quantity nor quality but either action or passion action as from the mother passion as in the person born Now actions though they are capable of various modifications yet I do not think any Logicians call them subjects or their several modifications adjuncts but the substance whose action or passion it is is the subject both of the action and passion and their degrees and modifications and these are adjuncts of that substance Mr. Bl. adds of me He is pleased to deny that it is a distribution of the subject according to its adjuncts and gives in the thing in dispute for a reason Then the same person he says would be born after the spirit and after the flesh Answ. I give in this reason I confess but I did not think this was in dispute but out of all dispute the Apostle making them two sons born of two mothers v. 22. two several ways v. 23. born to two several estates v. 24 25 30. the one persecuting the other and all these diversities are in the persons which are Types and in their Antitypes and the Apostle thence inferreth that the one are not the other v. 31. whence it follows that birth after the flesh and spirit are not adjuncts of the same subject but contrary attributes of several subjects Mr. Bl. proceeds Presently he confesseth that Isaac was born after the flesh in the two senses I mention And I am sure Mr. T. will not deny that Isaac was born after the Spirit and then either truth is very absurd or else Mr. T. hath quit me from absurdity but then he says It is untrue in the Apostles sense for then he should be the childe of the bond-mayd not by promise a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit To which I answer that my sense is the Apostles sense and Mr. T. his sense far from it For though the Apostle doth indeed allegorize the Text as Arias Montanus renders it quae sunt allegorizata yet the Apostle in the parallel looks at the letter of the history as I have shewen not at the Allegory which Mr. T. had not a face to oppose either he must deny now and then to be Adverbs of time or else he must allow of my interpretation Ishmael did never as a Justitiary prosecute Isaac under the notion of a follower of Evangelical righteousness Answ. I do confess Isaac was born after the Spirit and that he was born after the flesh in the two senses of Mr. Bl. for one born of natural parents Abraham was his natural father and in the sense more common in Scripture for the outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth though I do not find the phrase born after the flesh in this later sense in Scripture not Phil. 3. 4. Rom. 9. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 16. where the term flesh is used and yet I think onely in the first place importing prerogatives no where the phrase born after the flesh in that sense yet not in the Apostles sense in which to be born after the flesh notes birth without consideration of the father as by a mother that was a bond-woman and so no prerogative is intimated in it but a debasement or deminution and so Isaac was not born after the flesh that is not of a bond-woman by an usual way of generation but of the free-woman by Divine virtue according to a promise to her when past childe-bearing in the course of nature And this to be the Apostles sense is proved before and Mr. Bls. sense proved very absurd and his reasons for it answered Yet he adds of me After some concessions in full contradiction to himself I deny not saith he but legal Justitiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house though the Apostle make the parallel onely in the casting out that they might not inherit Apolog. pag. 114. he saith if Mr. Bl. would gather anything hence for himself he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be of the visible Church by virtue of being born after the flesh as their prerogative which is as wide from the Apostles meaning as the East is from the West as far as the East is from the Sun-rising he should have said that is the thing that I have proved and do maintain I laid down by way of Syllogism and have an Apology instead of an answer Mr. T. hath a notable faculty in begging of the question in agitation The Apostles full scope I confess is another thing but I still affirm that he occasionally expresses that from whence this is evidently deduced namely a distinction of births literal not allegorical which Mr. T. never will be able with any reason to deny till it can be proved that then and now look at the Allegory not at the History I can prove from Luke 13. 16. that the Israelitish women are daughters of Abraham though it is plain that another thing there was Christs main intention Answ. Mr. Bl. continues to write at random There 's no shew of contradiction much less a full contradiction in my words to my self This may be true Justitiaries may be in the visible Church and this also To be born after the flesh or to be a Justitiary doth not import a prerogative giving title to be of the visible Church my speech was right and needs not to be mended by any of Mr. Bls. flâ—â—ts He hath a full answer to his Syllogism before and so he had before in the Apology the strength of his arguing being thus expressed here The consequence is plain birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church interest which is denied to be proved from Galat. 4. 26. and was denied before And though being an answerer I need not prove and therefore begging the question is charged on me frivolously by Mr. Bl. For he only begs the question who takes for granted that which he should prove which is Mr. Bls. fault who useth to dâ—ctate when he should prove yet did I prove that the Apostles scope is not onely another thing than the asserting of a prerogative of visible Church-membership by being born after