The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 53
CHAP. LIII.
Matth. 19. 14. Mark. 10. 14. Luk. 18. 16. Vindicated.
THat Text in the Goſpel (uttered by our Saviour Chriſt) and recorded by three Evangeliſts, comes now to be conſidered; Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of ſuch is the Kingdome of God. In the whole Narrative in Goſpel-records we may ſee
Firſt,The whole narrative analyſed. The pious care of Parents, or others in their ſtead; to preſent Infants to Chriſt.
Secondly, The harſh entertainment that they found from the Diſciples of Chriſt.
Thirdly, The good will of the Lord Chriſt towards them manifeſted.
1. In his diſpleaſure againſt thoſe that forbade their coming.
2. In his free admiſſion of them.
3. In gratifying their requeſts that brought them.
4. In receiving them in his Armes.
In the words that we have in hand, we ſee. 1. Their admiſſion; or at leaſt charge given for it; Suffer little children to come unto me. 2. The reaſon, for of ſuch is the Kingdome of God. Here is wont to be enquired. 1. What moved theſe thus to preſent their children.Upon what account theſe infants were tendered to Chriſt. This by the Evangeliſts is expreſſed; that Chriſt would put his hands upon them, and pray. Which as they requeſted, ſo he condeſcended to anſwer, He put his hands upon them, and bleſſed them. They looked upon Chriſt (as it ſeemes) as a great Prophet highly in favour with God, and ſuch were wont to bleſs in the name of God, and their bleſſing was highly prized. Hands were uſed to be impoſed as in ſacrifices, Exod. 29. 10. ſo on perſons in bleſſing, Gen. 48 14. The reaſon that moved his Diſciples to forbid their coming, can ſcarce be doubted. They ſaw men reſorting to Chriſt;Why they were forbidden by the Diſciples. either moved by his Doctrine, or his Miracles, either to be inſtructed, or cured; neither of theſe could be in their thoughts that preſented theſe little ones. They were uncapable of his teaching, being infants; and that they needed not his cure, being not diſeaſed, and therefore they rebuked thoſe that came to tender them.Poſitions rending to clear Chriſt admiſſion of them. Now to come to a clear underſtanding of the words, we ſhall lay firſt ſome poſitions concerning theſe Infants admiſſion, and afterwards come to the conſideration of the reaſon.
Firſt, That theſe were Infants, or as Infants in an incapacity to learne ought from Chriſt, and ſo actually to imbrace Chriſt, or enter Covenant themſelves with him. Which does appear. 1. In that they are called little ones, foreign. 2. They were brought, and came not on their own accord. 3. In that Chriſt took them up in his armes. 4. Had they been capable by age of inſtruction, with what colour could any have denied them? Why might not they come as well as thoſe multitudes that flocked to him? 5. Why were not the children themſelves ſpoke to, to forbear to come, rather than thoſe that brought them, not to bring them? If they were capable of inſtruction, they were capable of rebuke. 6. Why is there no word of inſtruction ſpoken to them? The young man that came to Chriſt, was inſtructed by Chriſt in the ſame Chapter. So ſhould theſe have been inſtructed as well as bleſt, had they been in a capacity for inſtruction.
Secondly, As they were in an incapacity by reaſon of age to be taught, ſo they were not (as was ſaid) diſeaſed to have need of cure. This the Diſciples well knew that this was uſual with Chriſt to cure thoſe that laboured under infirmities of all ages, and therefore would never have had it in their thoughts to have rebuked thoſe that brought theſe, and the Evangeliſt would never have concealed this reaſon, and mentioned another. Such a thing as this I ſaid was vented in a Manuſcript, but I knew not that ever any print had maintained it. Now I am told that there is a book in Folio entituled Baby Baptiſme meere Babiſme, that doth aſſert it. If any man will trouble himſelf with the book or reaſons, he may enjoy his liberty. He ſayes the touch mentioned was in order to healing, but I ſhall rather believe the Evangeliſt that referres it to bleſſing, Mark 10. 16.
Thirdly, Theſe were infants of ſuch parents, that were in covenant with God, as appeares, in that Chriſt who now was in the Coaſts of Judea, was ſent alone to them of Judea in covenant with God, Matth. 15. 24. And was a Miniſter of the circumciſion, Rom. 15. And we ſee how facile he was to them, when his carriage was otherwiſe, and of another ſort: when a Canaanitiſh woman comes for her child, Mat. 15. 26. This further appeares by that which they requeſted for theſe infants. This ſeemes to be yielded, They came (ſaith one) to Chriſt upon the conceit that he was a Prophet, and ſo they might bring children to him to be bleſſed; and further ſayes, if this reaſon prove any thing, it is, that the childrens parents were Jewes, which is all that we contend for, the Jewes as yet were in Covenant with God. To this is ſaid, if it be meant of all the Jewes, and of the covenant of grace in Chriſt, it is palpably falſe, contradictory to the Apoſtles determination, Rom. 9. 7, 8. I am ſure, Rom, 9. 3, 4. Proves it to be above all contradiction true, and that Rom. 9. 7, 8. hath nothing againſt it, I have largely ſhewed, which is paſt by in ſilence.
Fourthly, Theſe infants themſelves were in covenant, and ſtood in relation to Chriſt, bearing his name, and being of his people; and were not as heathens in their preſent ſtate without Chriſt; aliens from the Common-Wealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers from the covenant of promiſe. This is evident by their free admiſſion by Chriſt, and the reaſon by him given, of ſuch is the Kingdome of heaven. After ſome perſonal reflections which I am reſolved to wave, I am told of the often complaint of the uſe of the word covenant, in ſo various ſenſes, or rather ſometimes none-ſenſe by the Paedobaptiſts, and again of their non-ſenſe or proper gibberiſh, which language I reſolve to bear, being the leaſt of many thouſands that herein I ſuffer.
Fifthly, They were admitted upon a common right equally belonging to all infants of covenanting parents, and not by vertue of any extraordinary priviledge peculiar to them, and not common to others. This is plaine. 1. By the general admiſſion which he gives to infants on this occaſion; ſuffer little children to come unto me, and extraordinarium non facit regulam communem; Here is a general rule, all have admiſſion, and therefore there is nothing extraordinary it is objected, theſe preſent infants onelyonly were admitted, but though one ſay it, me thinks another ſhould not be found to beleeve it, of ſuch little ones is the Kingdome of heaven, therefore let theſe little ones come, and onelyonly theſe. 2. It was ſuch a right that the Diſciples of Chriſt ought to have underſtood, as plainly appeares by Chriſts ſore diſpleaſure conceived againſt them, for forbidding their admiſſion to him, and that muſt be a known right and not ſecret; One indeed ſayes, They were not admitted out of any known right common to others, but a peculiar priviledge as being elected; for which Piſcator is quoted, when as Piſcator ſylogiſtically concludes the contrary. His evaſion of this argument is very well worthy of animadverſion, The reaſon of Chriſts anger was their hindring him in his deſigne, not the knowledge they had of their preſent viſible title, this is but a dream, afterwards he ſaith, the truth is, this thing was done to theſe infants, not by reaſon of any viſible title they had, or to enter them into any outward Church priviledge, but to accompliſh by his bleſſing their intereſt in the inviſible Kingdom of God by election. I would demand whether the Diſciples did underſtand Chriſts deſigne, or whether they were bound to know it, or were their ſinne not to know it; whether they knew theſe infants to be elect, or whether they were bound to know their election? Neither of theſe having any ground (election being of the ſecrets of heaven, and Chriſt had not made known any ſuch deſigne) Chriſt who condemnes anger without a cauſe as a breach of the ſixth commandment, M…t. 5. 22. would not himſelf have been angry, where there could be no ſin the alone juſt ground of anger. It is now confeſt that the Diſciples of Chriſt ought to have underſtood that they were to be admitted; but it was, either becauſe they heeded not ſome particular intimation of his mind concerning thoſe infants, or ſome general truth concerning Chriſts office, and his readineſſe to do good to all ſorts of perſons, as there was oppertunity offered, from which he ought not to be hindred by them, when Chriſt himſelf aſſigns an open known reaſon, of ſuch little ones is the Kingdome of heaven, they that will may heed oppoſite conjectural reaſons. It is confeſt that elect infants might be baptized were they known; but in this caſe Chriſt may be as ſore diſpleaſed at mens non-baptizing elect ones, as he was at his Diſciples for forbidding the admiſſion of theſe little ones. And let them take heed upon this account leſt they ſuffer more from Chriſts diſpleaſure in not admitting elect infants to Baptiſme, than they can imagine that we ſhall ſuffer in the Baptiſme of thoſe that are not elected. I am told that I have just cauſe to fear the diſpleaſure of Chriſt for admitting to Baptiſme thoſe that are neither known to be elect, nor beleevers, but infants of parents, who are manifeſtly children of the devil, covenant breakers. If they be covenant-breakers as is here confeſt, then they are covenanters, for none out of covenant breakes covenant; and I here profeſſe that I will baptize none of whom I have not all aſſurance that they are the children of God. As to that Adoption which is to the inheritance of priviledges, as thoſe were, Ezek. 16. 20.
Sixthly, They are here admitted by our Saviour Chriſt to a Church-priviledge, proper to Church-members, the Iſrael of God; They are admitted to a bleſſing, Mar. 10. 16. Bleſſing is a Church-priviledge, Num. 6. 22 23, &c. to the end of the Chapter, The Lord ſpake unto Moſes ſaying, ſpeak unto Aaron and his ſonnes, ſaying, on this wiſe ye ſhall bleſſe the children of Iſrael, ſaying unto them, the Lord bleſſe thee and keep thee, &c. And they ſhall put my Name upon the children of Iſrael, and I will bleſſe them. They are therefore admitted to a Church-priviledge; the Iſrael of God are under the bleſſing, little ones are ordered to receive this bleſſing, little ones therefore are of Iſrael. The Lords portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance, Deut. 32. 9. Theſe are the bleſſed of the Lord upon this account, Jerem. 31. 23. As yet they ſhall uſe this ſpeech in the land of Judah, and in the Cities thereof, when I ſhall bring again their captivity; The Lord bleſſe thee O habitation of juſtice, and mountain of holineſſe. Children are within this number, they are the heritage of the Lord, Pſalm. 127. 3. and conſequently admitted by our Saviour Chriſt to this priviledge of a bleſſing. The Authour that charges non-ſenſe and gibberiſh on Paedobaptiſts in general, there tells his Reader, that my arguing is as though my wits went on wool-gathering, becauſe I was not mindful to put my argument into an explicite ſylogiſtical form, but now it is done for his ſatisfaction; bleſſing is a priviledge of the Iſrael of God, Numb. 6. 23. 27. Chriſt admits infants to a bleſſing. Therefore he admits them to a priviledge of the Iſrael of God or Church-priviledge. It is objected that Chriſt admits onelyonly a few, but it is with a reaſon that gives admiſſion to others of ſuch is the Kingdome of heaven. A great triumph is made of a ſpeech of mine, page 91. of my anſwer, where I ſay we do not think that this bleſſing was baptiſing, or that theſe deſired, or that Chriſt intended their baptiſme; onelyonly we affirme that a medium hence may be taken▪ from whence we may inferre the right of infants to baptiſme; They that are admitted to one Church-priviledg, may not be denyed another, whereof they are equally capable; But infants are here admitted and order taken for their admiſſion to one Church-priviledge, of which they are no otherwiſe capable than of Baptiſme; ſo that here is no direct precedent for baptiſme in particular, but for Church-priviledges of which infants are capable. None that are intereſſed in the Church of Chriſt which is his Kingdome may be denied an admiſſion to it by Baptiſme. A ground it is, not immediate expreſſe, but by neceſſary conſequence. Obſervation is made, Mark this ſpeech, if [but] be adverſative, then he grants that infants are capable of Church-priviledges; not of Baptiſme, which overthrowes all his diſpute. But that is left out which would fully explaine my meaning, and wholly take off the force of his reply. This act of Chriſt is no direct precedent for Baptiſme in particular, but of Church-priviledges in general. If he can but aſſume and make good with our Socinian Antibaptiſts (who in the parts where I live, begin to triumph over Antipaedobaptiſts, beating them down with their own weapons) that Baptiſme is no Church-priviledge; then I ſhall confeſſe, that he hath wreſted this argument out of my hands, and that this text as to this argument falls, otherwiſe it is of force and an undeniable conſequence. I am now told, that, if this act of Chriſts be a direct precept (I intended precedent) of Church-priviledges in general, then it is of Baptiſme in particular, being a Church-priviledge, that which is ſaid of the Genus, being true (as Logicians ſay) of the ſpecies, quicquid praedicatur de genere, praedicatur de ſpecie. Whence it followes, he ſpeaks inconſiſtencies. But he ſhould have taken in all my words [immediate expreſſe] as well as [direct] and I think he that ſpeakes of the Genus doth not immediately, directly, and expreſly ſpeak of the ſpecies. But if it be otherwiſe, and that herein I was miſtaken, I am here content to retract it, and confeſſe now, with help of this new light, that there is an expreſſe, immediate, direct precedent for infant-Baptiſme.
Concerning the reaſon given of admiſſion of infants in that propoſition of Chriſts, Of ſuch is the Kingdome of heaven: We have 1. The ſubject, of ſuch. 2. The predicate or attribute, is the Kingdome of Heaven. The particle ſuch cannot here have reference to their qualification: that thoſe that were qualified as theſe, in humility, and meekneſſe, had their intereſt; Sheep and Doves as well as infants, are thus qualified. They are not proud, nor revengeful. That which the Diſciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a juſt ground of rebuke 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 littleneſſe, which the Diſciples took to be a juſt impediment, and which occaſioned their reproof: So that the particle [ſuch] hath direct reference to the quantity (as I may ſay) not to the quality of theſe infants, to their infant-ſtature, or minority not to their meekneſſe or humility. And ſo it is referred elſe-where expreſſely by our Saviour himſelf; Who ſo ſhall receive one ſuch little child, Matth. 18. 5. the word is the ſame here, and there, it reſpects littleneſſe therefore, and not meekneſſe. The whole Text may be thus fitly parathraſed; Trouble not our Maſter with ſuch as theſe, ſay the Diſciples, there is no uſe of their coming, they need not his cure, and they are not capable of his inſtruction, they have no infirmity to be healed, no capacity to be taught; It is fit for men of abler parts, not for infants to make their addreſſe to him, Let them come, ſaith our Saviour, and let not their infant-age exclude them, how little ſoever they are capable of the Kingdome of Heaven.
For the predicate or attribute, the Kingdome of heaven: This as is ſaid, is meant of the Kingdome of Glory; and on this hinge (as is further ſaid) the anſwer to the whole Argument turnes. The Author therefore aſſumes his affirmation, and ſaith; I determine the Kingdome of Heaven to be meant of the Kingdome of Glory, and gives his reaſons. To encounter with this confident aſſault of his, I ſhall undertake theſe three particulars.
1. To make it appear that the hinge of the whole hangs not here.
2. That in his reaſons given are nothing ſatisfactory, to evince that it muſt be meant of the Kingdome of Glory.
3. That in caſe it were granted him, yet it doth not at all advantage the lea…e.
Firſt, That all hangs not on this, appeares, in that our Saviour had ſaid enough in his order for admiſſion of theſe infants, on which we can build our concluſion. Thoſe that are admitted to Church-priviledges, they are Church-members; But infants are admitted by our Saviour Chriſt to Church-priviledges, and therfore are Church-members. However Maſter Tombes can interpret the reaſon, yet he cannot deny Chriſts order for their admiſſion, nor deny that it was a Church-priviledge to which they are admitted. To illuſtrate it by a parallel. The Apoſtle ſayes, 1 Cor. 11. 10. The woman ought to have power on her head, becauſe of the Angels. The womans duty is there cleare, to be covered in token of ſubjection, though we do not agree what is meant by Angels; Whether Angels of Glory, or Gods Miniſters in the Congregations that are called Angels of Churches; our duty is as plain to give infants admittance as Church-members, though the reaſon annext remaines controverted; Whether Gods Kingdome on Earth, or the Kingdome in Glory be here meant by the Kingdome of Heaven.
Secondly, For his Reaſons (which though I ſhould yield, the cauſe is already gained) there is not force in them.
1. Saith he, The Kingdome of God muſt be underſtood, Mark 10. 14. as it is verſ. 15. and Luke 18. 16. as verſ. 17. and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both thoſe; This is proved, becauſe our Saviour from their eſtate, inferres a likeneſſe to them in others for the ſame eſtate, Apolog p. 150. This Argument what colour ſoever it carries, 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 or Application, as in a place much parallel I ſhall ſhew, 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2. There we have the Apoſtles reproof, verſ. 1. and his reaſon, verſ. 2. as in the Evangeliſts we have Chriſts aſſertion confirming his reproof, ver. 14. and his application, ver. 15. Now Saint, in the Apoſtles reproof is taken more largly, 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 judge in ſmall matters, for real Saints in glory ſhall judge the world, ſhall judge Angels; and ſo it may be here, infants have their preſent title to the viſible Kingdome; and men qualified as infants, ſhall only enter the Kingdome of Glory. 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 yield or anſwer it. The third reaſon, that the ſpeech, Mark 10. 15 Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3, 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome 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 to Matth. 18. 3, 4.
Thirdly, Were it granted him, that the Kingdome of Glory muſt be underſtood both in Chriſts reaſon and application, yet he is nothing holpen. Infants have right to the Church viſible militant, becauſe 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. It is ſaid, that if this propoſition were granted, that they have 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, it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptized.
Anſw. If election or non-election muſt ſteere us in admiſſion to Baptiſme this were to purpoſe interpoſed, but when there is nothing that can be objected againſt them as hindring their ſalvation it is ſufficiently proved that it may not hinder their Baptiſme. That muſt not be pleaded againſt any as a barre to hinder their admiſſion into the Church on earth that will not hinder their admiſſion into the Church in heaven.