The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 1 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII. Sect. I. Touching the Explication of Luke 18. 15, 16, 17.
ANother Scripture holding forth the Federall and Eccleſiaſticall right and holineſſe of inchurched viſible beleevers little ones is, Luke 18. 15, 16, 17. where the Lord affirmeth of the children offered to him by thoſe pious minded parents, that of ſuch is the kingdome of God, as Matthew hath it, Chap. 19. of ſuch is the kingdome of heaven, which is here taken for the viſible Church, ſo Matth. 8. 11. 12. and 13. 24. and it ſeemeth evident from Luke 18. that hee mentioneth the kingdome of God three wayes, Firſt, a kingdome of which ſuch Infants and ſuch like perſons are; namely, as ſubjects. Secondly, a kingdome which ſuch actuall ſubjects of that kingdome doe receive. Thirdly, a kingdome unto which in an ordinary way and meanes they come to enter. The firſt is meant of the viſible, not of the inviſible Church, and of them as members of the former, and not ſo properly of the latter; touching which, let it bee remembred that this was not a bare temporary, and preſent charge, in reference barely to thoſe very children, and onelyonly to that very preſent approach to Chriſt, but did reſpect after approches of ſuch like perſons unto Chriſt, hee ſaith not, ſuffer theſe little children to come (at this time) to mee, for of theſe is the Kingdome of God, but indefinitely, rather ſuffer little ones, ſcil. of this ſort, ſuch as theſe are to come to mee: nor would A. R. and others, which apply it to ſuch like perſons for humilitie, &c. reſtraine it to the occaſionall act at that time, but inlarge it in reference to any ſuch perſons at any time in a like caſe that they ſhould not bee hindred from Chriſt. Now as for the members of the inviſible Church, as ſuch they are inviſible, and fall not under the proper cognizance of the ſons of men to know, which or where they are: and to ſuppoſe an injunction of not hindring their approach to Chriſt, unleſſe they came under a viſible reſpect of members of the viſible Church that they might bee diſcerned, and it might bee knowne how and when, and in whom this rule of ſuffering ſuch to come to Chriſt, were kept or broken, it were very incongruous, and it's a very improbable conjecture, that Chriſt ſpake thus of theſe very Infants, by an act of divine knowledge of them to bee the elect of God: as if a company of children ſhould bee by an unwonted providence, ſingled out to bee brought to him, which were every one of them elected to eternall life, and not any of them, in a contrary eſtate. And by the latitude of the extent of Chriſts ſpeech, as before wee ſhewed in reference to after and other times, and examples of like nature as to the preſent caſe it appeares, hee neither ſpake thus as God, or as a meere extraordinary inſpired Prophet, but delivered as in ordinary adminiſtration of the mind of God, as at other times, an ordinary rule of ordinary practiſe and uſe afterwards, in reference not barely to thoſe very little ones then brought, but to others like them; wherefore ſuch evaſions of C. B. in his fourth anſwer to this place are frivolous. And why ſhould there bee ſuch ſtartling at this place as if it were uncouth doctrine, that children of inchurched members ſhould be counted ſubjects of Gods kingdom, or members of his viſible Church? the Jews children, as well as parents which were caſt out together▪ Matth. 8. 11, 12. were ſurely in that kingdome together, out of which they came to bee caſt afterwards; the uncircumciſed man child was of the people or Church of God in viſible account, elſe not cut off from his people in that caſe of neglect, Gen. 17. 14. and in the purer dayes of the Goſpell, yet expected, the children are put under David or Chriſt their Prince as King, and head, and Lord of his viſible Church, as well as the parents, as before wee ſhewed from Ezek. 37. 25, 26, 27. and God accounted them even in very corrupt time, children of his covenant ſpouſe or viſible Church, Thy children which thou bareſt to mee, Ezekiel 16. 8. 20, 21. 23. witneſſe the ſetting to of the initiatory Church ſeale of circumciſion to thoſe children of Abraham, Iſaac and Jacobs loynes; and no wonder, in that they were all intereſted in the covenant of grace, as inveſted with Church-covenant, which is even the very forme of the Church, giving Church being to perſons therein intereſted; nor is it likely that theſe children were other then ſuch, being either proſelytes children, joyned to the Jewiſh Church, or children of Jewes, either of them formerly circumciſed, and in facie eccleſiae of the Church, the Apoſtles which uſed to bee queſtioning any thing obſcure, which they underſtood not, or ſeemed to them ſtrange, would in likelihood have inquired after ſatisfaction therein, of Chriſt, as their manner was, if it had not been very cleare, convincing, approved, received doctrine, which Chriſt urged as his reaſon of reproofe of their act in hindring the little ones approach to him; hee which himſelfe forbad them, Matth. 10. to goe into the way of the Gentiles, no not into Samaria, and when himſelfe tooke up the Gentile Canaanite in ſuch ſort at firſt, albeit ſhe a beleever, Matth. 15. 22. if theſe had beene other then viſible beleeving inchurched perſons, yea though Gentiles yet inchurched proſelytes which brought theſe children, hee would not have ſo roundly, and ſharpely taken up his Diſciples, for aſſaying to hinder them from him, when the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſpeaketh thus to the Church, and not to the citie as ſuch, which writ to him, and to whom hee writ this back againe; hee ſaith elſe [their] children, as appropriating externall adoption, as well as formerly, to others of that ſort, Rom. 9. 1, 2, 3, 4. they were the children of that Spouſe of Chriſt, 2 Cor. 11. 2. 3. as thoſe were formerly of that Church, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. ſhe brought forth other children by the miniſtry, Pſal. 87. 5. albeit, not ſo many as now, and hereafter, Eſa. 54. 5. but that way alſo did the Church beare children to the Lord. And are purer Gentiles Churches wombes in that reſpect ſhut up; or doth the Lord leſſe affect communion with his Church in that expreſſion of his love now, then hee did to the Church of old? ſurely no; the Corinthian members as a Church body, had their Church children, and ſeed: alſo, the Apoſtle taketh order with the women, 1 Cor. 14. Let [your] women keepe ſilence in the Churches; but why [your]? what, becauſe they were the members wives onelyonly? no verily: ſince ſome ſuch were Pagans, and without the Church, and hee proteſteth againſt any Church dealing with ſuch, 1 Cor. 5. end; what have wee to doe with them from any Church care, or reſpect? but rather [your] women as being of the Church, and ſo here, not [your] children holy: ſcil. barely of your members in a common naturall way: but yours in a Church relation rather. And let the Apoſtles diviſion bee further attended, 1 Cor. 5. placing all perſons as either within or without the viſible Church: For if his diviſion be regular, as who will ſay otherwiſe, of the wiſeſt dictates of the holy Ghoſt? then theſe membra dividentia take up the whole diviſion, and there is no middle or neutrall eſtate actually of perſons. And albeit the perſons chiefly intended, bee adult perſons, yet it muſt hold, as well of others, or elſe it is not a compleat diviſion. So then the little ones which are borne of inchurched perſons, they are either actually within the Church, or actually without at preſent, onelyonly ſome poſſibilities as ſome ſuppoſe of their being actuall members, afterward at moſt: but at preſent their actuall eſtate muſt bee the one, or the other; if actually within the Church, I have what I ſeeke, if onelyonly potentially ſuch as may come in, but yet actually without, 1. then the children of the Church in primitive times were ſuch as the Apoſtles, as extraordinary, and now Elders as ordinary officers in the Church, were not, nor are to take any ſpeciall Church care of; ſince the tie of that Church care, as ſuch, dependeth upon covenant and Church relation, either extraordinary, as that of the Apoſtles, to all the Churches; or ordinary, as that of the officers of this or that Church. 2. Then Churches and their officers are not to deale with any ſuch children more then with pagans in any Church way of inſtruction or admonition when growne up. 3. Then are ſuch ſo farre forth to bee left as perſons without actually, to the more immediate judgement of God; what have wee to doe with ſuch? God judgeth them, and the phraſe of Gods judging them, how ſad a caſe it noteth, ſee Heb. 3. 4. and 10. 29, 30, 31. 4. Then ſuch children being actually without, they are actually and at preſent amongſt the number of ſuch perſons of whom is little hope: as Marke 4. 11, 12. to them without: if hardned perſons, in parables: ſo Revel. 22. without are dogs. The perſons left out of Church fellowſhip by the new Jeruſalem are of the worſt ſort, …vel. 22. 15. 5. Then the Jewiſh Church is ſuppoſed to have a larger ſhare in the charitie of God, and his people, ſo that their children in relation to Church eſtate are called and counted God and his Churches children, purer Gentile Churches have no ſuch charitie allowed towards the members children: which abſurdities if any will ſwallow, let them enjoy their conceipts.
SECT. II.
ANd thus farre of the diſpenſing kingdome of God, as it ſeemes to bee included, and intended in the firſt expreſſion, Of ſuch is the kingdome of God: which may ſerve to anſwer the ſcruples of ſome, as if ſuch an aſſertion of children of beleevers, to bee of Gods kingdome, ſhould croſſe the courſe of providence, many proving wicked: For this hinders not, but they belong to the viſible Church: no more then Chriſts aſſertion of all the Jewes, to be the children of the kingdome of heaven, into which the Gentiles from all parts ſhould come after the rejection of the Jews, Matth. 8. 11, 12. nor is this any more croſſe to Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. then that is; yea ſuppoſe the Kingdome of heaven bee taken for that of glory; yet in that covenant and Church eſtate is theirs, ſo far alſo is glory theirs, ſcil. in foro eccleſiae. And wee have before proved that Chriſt ſpake this as man, not meerely as God, as hee ſaid before of the Jewes, Matth. 8. 11, 12. and after this ſpake to like purpoſe, Matth. 21. 43. they were as externally adopted, Rom. 9. 4. externally inrighted to that promiſe of glory, the promiſes indefinitely being thus far theirs, & that promiſed heritage being thus far theirs. If they had not Gods kingdome, in reſpect of this eſtating of theirs in it, and right to it; how came they to have it taken from them? was not that in reſpect of any externall Church right actually theirs unto, or to the diſpenſation of the covenant holding the ſame forth? they were all heires, albeit under tutors, Gal. 4. 1, 2, 3. but to mee the former ſenſe is rather moſt unqueſtionable, that of ſuch is the kingdome of God, or of heaven, ſcil. the viſible Church as before was proved; and this may alſo ſatisfie that which is objected, that hee might ſpeake this in reference to the future; that is, that they were elect ones, and ſhould in time bee of Gods kingdome, that is, beleevers, or in that they were ſuch as God would bleſſe: For Chriſts words are not, Of ſuch may, will or ſhall bee the kingdome of God, nor that they were of his kingdome, becauſe ſuch as hee would bleſſe; but rather that they ſhould not bee hindred from being bleſſed of him, becauſe of ſuch [is] the kingdome of God; as the context and force of that reaſon in reference to the occaſion ſheweth: and as for that aſſertion of their being all elect, the improbabilitie thereof hath before appeared; nor doth Chriſt ſeeme to ſpeal: of the kingdome of God as taken for the inviſible Church of actuall beleevers▪ but of viſible members of the viſible Church, as before was ſhewed. Hee affirmeth that thoſe little ones, de praeſenti, were of the kingdome of God, yet were not they actually beleevers, hee aſſerteth as much of the Jews to be rejected afterward, that yet at preſent they were the children of that very kingdome of heaven, whereinto the Gentiles, even the very beſt of them come to ſit; the Church eſtate in both was the ſame in the eſſentialls, and the covenant eſtate the ſame eſſentially: the externall right to grace, and glory the very ſame eſſentially, and ſo the reaſon of the grant here, and aſſertion, is the ſame in reference to the little ones, of other viſible beleevers, as of theſe which brought their children to Chriſt, unleſſe God ſhould bee made a reſpecter of perſons; their Infants muſt come to Chriſt, and not bee hindred, becauſe they were Federally and Eccleſiaſtically priviledged, or becauſe of ſuch is Gods kingdome; the ſame is valid now, ſince as adult perſons externally in covenant and Church eſtate, muſt not according to our oppoſites mindes bee hindred from Chriſt, becauſe ſuch like as theſe little ones; ſo neither beleevers little ones being alſo ſuch like as well; they may not bee hindred from any ſuch way of initiatory approach to Chriſt as they are capable of, as is externall baptizing in the name or fellowſhip, as of the Father, ſo of Chriſt the Sonne, and alſo of the holy Spirit; to which purpoſe I ſuppoſe our Divines had reference, in urging this place for Paedobaptiſme, nor was this an affirming of Infants being ſaved by their parents faith, but an aſſenting of their externall Church right, by vertue of the latitude of Gods covenant applyed by the parents, and by occaſion of their holding forth of that faith, which did, foro eccleſiae, unite them, and their little ones to Chriſt, as head of the viſible Church, in which may by externall adoption and inſition are intereſted, which are not ſaved as before wee ſhewed; nor will that take off what it ſeemeth, ſome worthy Divines, have lately urged from hence for Paedobaptiſme; that if Chriſts mind had beene that Infants ſhould have been baptized, hee would have commanded theſe little ones to have beene baptized for an example: for according to the principles of C. B. and others, Chriſt did love theſe little ones with his everlaſting love, they received heaven of free gift, as all that will bee ſaved muſt doe: theirs was the kingdome of glory really, and Chriſt as God, and as an extraordinary Prophet of the Church knew all this, &c. now why ſhould not, or were not theſe Infants, at leaſt baptized? C. B. will anſwer, Infants of beleevers may die in their Infancy, and they may live to commit actuall ſinnes, &c. and wee not knowing which will live or die, cannot baptize them, what then according to C. B. it ſeemes the uncertainty of Infants deaths, whilſt young, or living to growne yeares, is an impediment to their baptiſme. Where did C. B. here or ever read in Scripture or of ſuch a juſt barre to Infants baptiſme? but ſuppoſe it were ſo to us, which know not this, yet C. B. will not ſay but Chriſt knew all herein, how matters would prove, therefore that was no juſt hinderance in the nature of it thereto; for then hee to whom this could bee no hinderance touching theſe children about whom C. B. ſaith hee revealed his Fathers eternall live, and good will, hee had cauſed at leaſt theſe little ones to have been baptized. Yea I demand upon the grant of thoſe things mentioned, whether C. B. or others oppoſing Paedobaptiſme, would deny that ſuch as Chriſt receiveth, and bleſſeth, and alloweth, the kingdome of heaven in their ſenſe, that is, that of glory, to be theirs, if growne ones, ſhould not therefore bee baptized. Now if this will not be denied, as I ſuppoſe, why, ſuppoſing the like caſe of any little ones, and Infants, ſhall the ſame bee denyed where there is the ſame ground of baptiſme in both ſorts? Nay ſuppoſe that by extraordinary revelation, C. B. and others of his minde did know as much as here is mentioned, in Marke 10. and Luke 16. that ſuch and ſuch children were Gods choſen ones, that they were received, and bleſſed of Chriſt, not in any common way, but as the very heires of glory, as theſe Infants are by them ſuppoſed to bee, and ſo were actually bleſſed with the ſpirit of grace, &c. would not they baptize theſe Infants? I ſuppoſe the more judicious would, and have ſaid that, in that caſe, they would doe it, becauſe ſuch an extraordinary revelation would ſuffice to warrant the act of baptizing ſuch Infants without profeſſion of faith, and becauſe of Peters principle, Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid that theſe ſhould bee bapzed which have received the holy Ghoſt as well as wee? and the inſtitution of baptizing Diſciples, would in this caſe beare it out, ſuch ſanctified perſons being Diſciples, &c. Nor indeed could it bee denyed by them rationally; ſince in this caſe Infants are not meerely ſuppoſed to bee capable thereof, but really to have received the ſublime things viſibly ſealed in baptiſme, even the ſpirit of grace, love, and bleſſing of Chriſt, the promiſe of grace and glory, &c. And therefore not to bee denied baptiſme, eſpecially ſeeing this their receiving of the thing ſignified, is alſo manifeſted, & ſo all uſuall occaſions that way removed. Now then to come to apply what here is granted; Firſt, then perſons may come under the notion of Diſciples which were never outwardly taught, and cannot perſonally hold out actuall faith, which our oppoſites elſewhere deny. Secondly, that it is not contrary to Chriſts minde, and to the rule, that perſons, without perſonall profeſſion of faith ſhould bee baptized. For as the former notion of Diſciples, if natura rei, it were not otherwiſe applyable, then as not ordinarily, ſo neither extraordinarily: and whether ordinarily, or extraordinarily, if applyable ſo; it is not ſimply to bee denyed; ſo I ſay in the latter: albeit, extraordinary things done beſides rule croſſe not ordinary rule; yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily, is any thing to be done, which is in it ſelf contrary to rule. It was beſide rule for a Prieſt to kill Zimri and Cosbi, but not a breach of rule, or any thing contrary to rule. Thirdly, that there was ground why Chriſt might command thoſe little ones brought to him to bee baptized, yea it was his mind, and according to his will they ſhould bee baptized, albeit it bee not mentioned that they were baptized: who could forbid water that they ſhould bee baptized, which received the holy Ghoſt, which were Diſciples? Chriſts extraordinary knowledge of it himſelfe, and revelation thereof to his Apoſtles then preſent, which uſed to baptize others, John 4. 1. 2. it's granted was ſufficient warrant, albeit there had been no rule for it, when yet in this caſe the rule of baptizing Diſciples, John 4. 1. alſo might ſuffice. Let it then bee no more ſaid, that if it had been Chriſts mind, that Infants ſhould bee baptized, hee would have commanded thoſe, Luke 18. to bee baptized, ſince according to the acknowledged principles, thoſe little ones either were, or might groundedly have been baptized. But wee will ſuppoſe Chriſt did not then expreſly injoyne thoſe little ones baptiſme, or that they were not then baptized, yet will it not follow that it was not his mind ſuch babes to whom hee expreſſed ſuch love ſhould not bee baptized, or were not baptized; hee that had his time of bleſſing them, was free to take his time of injoyning their baptiſme. Yea hee gave not any expreſſe charge, touching any care to bee had of them, by thoſe which brought them: nor touching their being further inſtructed, in the way of God, and many other things of that nature: And yet none will thence reaſon that, Ergo, it was not his minde, that any ſpeciall care or religious indeavour, touching their further good ſhould bee uſed. No more doth the former follow that it was not his mind that either thoſe or any other ſuch like perſons ſhould bee baptized, becauſe hee did not then expreſſe his mind that way touching thoſe little ones. There might bee diverſe other reaſons▪ why Chriſt might not then injoyne the ſame: poſſibly their parents themſelves, albeit circumciſed, yet not baptized, or if baptized, their children alſo might be baptized when they were. And his reaſons to prove that by kingdome of heaven is rather meant that of glory then of grace, are as weake ſtill. Firſt, Becauſe they underſtand not the Lawes of the kingdome of grace. Secondly, becauſe this kingdome is a locall kingdome, as appeareth by the word entring in. But doth C. B. which ſaith theſe Infants did receive the kingdome of God by gift, thinke that they received not the kingdome of grace, at preſent before their entrance into glory, they were not yet entred heaven, but on earth then, and long after it may bee, yet hee ſaith thoſe little ones received it of gift; in what way, or by what meanes could they receive it? without any covenant right? ſurely no: For there is no inheritance of glory other then that promiſed inheritance, hence the promiſe put for glory promiſed, Heb. 10. 36. nor eternall life, but ſuch as is promiſed, Tit. 1. 1, 2, 3. yea could they receive it, without the Spirit? which yet they muſt alſo partake of by promiſe, or no way: none are made partakers of the Divine nature in any reſpect but by the promiſes, 2 Pet. 1. 4. now if thus really, and effectually intereſted in the covenant of grace, and partakers of the ſpirit, then the kingdome of grace too was theirs: albeit they underſtood not the Lawes of it. Yea doth Mr. B. thinke that the kingdome of glory belongs to any to whom that of grace belongeth not? muſt not that bee firſt ours before the other? yea doth not the phraſe of receiving the kingdome note out, that the kingdome of glory is received, in and by the receiving of that of grace, or of the word of the kingdome the promiſe, and covenant, &c. elſe is it not improper to ſay that thoſe Infants before they entred into Gods kingdome of glory they did receive it? It's a Locall kingdome, as Mr. B. hath it, and is it proper to ſay that a man receiveth a place, before hee come at it, otherwiſe then by word of mouth, or writing, or ſome equivalent ingagement? I conclude then that the kingdome that they received was rather that of grace, even the covenant of grace, if not alſo grace of the covenant, wherein was plighted, and ingaged ſome right to that of glory, or that it was the kingdome of glory, in reference to ſuch plighting and pledge of it. Nor doth Mr. B. his other reaſon conclude againſt what I have ſaid, they were at leaſt externally of Gods kingdome, in that firſt ſenſe, ſcil. conſidered, as his kingdome diſpenſing, ſcil. his Church. Secondly, they received his kingdome in a ſecond ſenſe, ſcil. conſidered as diſpenſed in the revealed way of Gods plighting of it by word, and initiatory ſeale at laſt of Circumciſion, if not of Baptiſme; and how ever in the externall right to both they are ſuch, which according to men at leaſt ſhould enter into glory in reſpect of actuall fruition of it, which is the kingdome in a third ſenſe, ſcil. the kingdome to bee poſſeſſed, and to which a entring in, in the Text hath indeed reference; but elſe Mr. Blackwoods reaſon would not inforce it, that becauſe of that locall expreſſion of entring in; the kingdome muſt ergo bee a locall kingdome, or heaven it ſelfe: there are locall expreſſions very full, Matth. 8. 11, 12. ſitting down of ſome in the kingdome of heaven, out of which others are caſt: yet will not Mr. B. conclude that even the Jewes were in heaven, and ſo caſt out thence, if they had not been firſt in, they had not been thence caſt: in, and out, are here relatives. It was ſome other kingdome, ſcil. that of grace in the externall ſubject of it, the viſible Church; and ingagement of it, the covenant of grace and diſpenſation of it: the adminiſtration of Church ordinances, &c. in which they were by externall adoption and inciſion, and out of all actuall priviledges whereof they were afterward caſt. As for that which others object againſt us in this point of childrens federall and eccleſiaſticall eſtate from hence, ſcil. that Chriſt ſaith not of theſe, but of ſuch, and ſuch like, ſcil. as A. R. hath it, ſuch like in humilitie, &c. is the kingdome of God, &c. this is as groundleſſe an interpretation as ſome others mentioned.
For firſt, it's evident that Chriſt maketh theſe little ones patterns to others like them, in that intereſt in Gods kingdome, of ſuch or ſuch like is Gods kingdome; now ſamples muſt have that verified in themſelves, in ſome ſenſe in which they are examples to others; ſecondly, they are incluſively made examples of ſuch an initiatory receiving of the kingdome of heaven, as tendeth to a more full fruition, and injoyment thereof, Luke 18. 17. Mark. 10. 15. and and therefore at leaſt externally ſuch, and ſo qualified themſelves now will their paralelling this with, Matth. 18. 3, 4, 5, 6. hold good therein, to ſay nothing, that that, Matth. 18. 6. may bee read from the Greek, theſe little ones foreign, of perſons beleeving or of beleevers in mee, ſcil. of parents beleeving in Chriſt, which little ones are not to be ſlighted but received in Chriſts name, verſ. 5. ſcil. unto Church communion as well as others, as that phraſe implyeth, Rom. 15. 7. This is undeniable that the occaſion of that ſpeech in Matth. 18. and of this in Matth. 19. Marke 10. Luke 18. was different, and at divers times uttered as the Texts compared ſhew, nor ſaith Chriſt in Matth. 18. as here, hee that receiveth not the kingdome of God as a little child, but thus; unleſſe yee bee as children, ſcil. in humilitie, &c. verſ. 3, 4. compared; and that likewiſe in Matth. 18. doth not conclude, ergo the intereſt of ſuch children, more then unto Doves, or ſheepe unto whom ſubjects of Gods kingdome are like, but here as hee ſaith of ſuch like is Gods kingdome: for withall, hee ſaith that others muſt receive Gods kingdome as they doe, making them patternes as well of receiving of, as intereſt in Gods kingdome, which was never affirmed of ſheepe or doves are harmeleſſe, if patternes of it. Actuall guile, malice and envie are removed from Infants, they act not ſuch ſinnes if they are patternes to others therein, 1 Pet. 2. 1, 2, 3. compared, they are low and little in their owne eyes, not minding great things, &c. if patternes of it, Matth. 18. Pſal. 131. 1, 2. ſo here they are intereſted in Gods kingdome, doe receive it externally at leaſt, both thoſe here mentioned, and ſuch like Infants, if they were made patternes thereof unto others, elſe the ſenſe of Luke 18. 17. would bee thus, Unleſſe any receive Chriſts kingdome as a child doth, ſcil. in a bare reſemblance of reception thereof without any realitie therein, ſo much as ſuppoſed, he ſhall not enter into it. Thirdly, Chriſt bringeth this as a reaſon why his Diſciples ſhould not hinder little ones as prophane from him, but rather further the approach of thoſe babes, becauſe of ſuchlike Infants, like them in covenant, and Church intereſt in God his kingdome. Now if this had beene Chriſts onelyonly reaſon thereof as is imagined, becauſe not of theſe out of ſuch like little ones by reſemblance in humilitie, and harmeleſneſſe, &c. is Gods kingdome, therefore further, and doe not hinder their comming to mee; then one might upon the ſame ground argue, that ſince oft perſons like good ſeed, and good fiſh for uſefulneſſe and fruitfulneſſe, &c. is Gods kingdome, Matth. 13. 24. 38. 47. 49. and ſince of perſons like Eagles for renovation, ſight, and ſeed, &c. Gods kingdome doth conſiſt, therefore further, and doe not hinder the bringing of ſuch ſeed, fiſh, and Eagles unto Chriſt; this were ridiculous. Yea ſuppoſe any other thing ſhort of what I have formerly mentioned touching theſe babes, wherein ſome of theſe creatures are not all out fully reſembling the Saints, yet if not intereſted more then thoſe creatures in the kingdome mentioned, it's not the degrees of more or leſſe like which will alter the force of that formall reaſon of not hindering theſe creatures therefore from Chriſt, ſcil. becauſe bare reſemblances of the Saints, as our oppoſites interpret this. Fourthly, as Chriſt taking them up in his armes, as the word is tranſlated, ſheweth they were little ones indeed, of whom hee ſpake, and not metaphoricall little ones, even growne perſons like them; ſo other acts ſhew that hee expreſſed as much in effect touching thoſe babes in his acts about them, as in his words hee ſpake touching them, the expreſſions of Chriſts love toward thoſe perſons, whether he tooke them up in his armes or imbraced them, it was no complement in Chriſt, but a moſt ſignificant expreſſion of his love; & his bleſſing of them, do declare that they had ſome more peculiar intereſt in ſome reſpects, at leaſt in an Eccleſiaſticall and Federall way, in him the King, and in that his kingdome mentioned, then to be bare ſemblances of others which had. Fiftly, the Greeke article foreign in reference to foreign, Luke 18. 15, 16, 17. the little ones, and not foreign in reference to the parents, as Beza noteth on the place, ſeemeth to ſhew, that he intended not ſuch allegoricall little ones, as the bringers of them, but the little ones brought in that aſſertion mentioned.
Object. Yea but Piſcator maketh that an argument, in that hee called the little ones, verſ. 16. that ergo they were not babes: and beſide, the word foreign ſignifies a child capable of teaching, as 2 Tim. 3. 15. from a child thou haſt learned the Scriptures, &c. and ſo your purpoſe faileth to apply this againſt Anabaptiſts denying the covenant, and Church right of babes of inchurched beleevers.
Anſw. 1. It's ſaid hee called them, ſcil. in calling their parents which brought them, albeit, they might not bee all capable of underſtanding that invitation; it's uſuall in Scripture becauſe of parents neareſt intereſt in their children to aſcribe things to their children, which are rather to bee underſtood of the parents, as when it is ſaid Levi paid tithes in Abraham, Heb. 7, &c. Secondly, albeit, that phraſe be uſed in Tim. thou haſt knowne the Scriptures from a child, yet it followes not, that therefore foreign doth not in the very naturall proper, and conſtant uſe of it ſignifie a babe more then the like phraſes uſed in Scripture ſhould not have their proper ſignification, becauſe ſomething there mentioned is not in ſtrict acceptation applyable thereunto; as when it's ſaid, thou madeſt me hope upon my mothers breaſts foreign or when I was upon my mothers breaſts, ſo Pſal. 58. 3. the wicked are eſtranged from the wombe, they goe aſtray as ſoone as they are borne ſpeaking lies: in theſe places will it bee hence argued that the Hebrew words rightly tranſlated, and ſo conſtantly uſed as tranſlated, ſignifie other then from mothers breaſts, and wombe, &c. in that a very ſucking or new borne child is not capable of actuall hoping in God or going aſtray actually from him, but rather perſons growne up more in yeares; here all will ſay theſe ſpecies are hyperbolicall, ſhewing that theſe things were acted thus by them very early, and very ſoone; ſo what though a little one, which is not a ſuckling but can ſpeake and underſtand is capable of knowing the Scriptures, yet it followeth not that foreign ſignifieth any other then a babe, but it ſheweth that Timothy was ſo trained up very early, hee doth not ſay, thou even a child [foreign] didſt know, but foreign from a child, that is, very ſoone and early in thy age. Thirdly, the Apoſtles did not uſe to hinder little ones which could goe and ſpeake, from comming to Chriſt, but further them rather: whether the parents were Jewes of Gentiles, yea, and thoſe not proſelytes: witneſſe that act Mark. 9. Matth. 15. this therefore was an example as they apprehended tending to trouble Chriſt more then ordinary to meddle with poore ſhiftleſſe babes. Fourthly, if they had been little ones which could goe, yet it ſufficeth to prove what Anabaptiſts deny: that before perſons could actually hold forth perſonall. Faith or repentance, may be actually in covenant with God and inrighted to the initiatory ſeale of it, and that albeit Chriſt did not actually cauſe theſe babes then to be baptized, that they had therefore no right to bee baptized, it followeth not.
But I. S. hee acknowledgeth thoſe children to bee of that kingdome or members of that Jewiſh Church, and therefore have right as well as others to temporall bleſſings, and that theſe children were brought to Chriſt for cure producing ſome Scriptures for that end, where prayer and impoſition of hands was uſed upon that occaſion; but doth the Text ſay, of ſuch or ſuch like was [that] kingdome? no verily, but indefinitely, of ſuch is [the] kingdome of God; and what though thoſe children were of that Church, ſince Chriſt inlargeth his ſpeech, as wee ſhewed, to ſuch like perſons, and ſo to other babes of like condition with thoſe; and had the Jewes, and their babes onelyonly right to temporall bleſſings will I. S. ſay: when that Abrahams covenant of God his being a God to them, ſcil. to fulfill his promiſes: inſtancing in that, Luke 1. 73, 74, 75. as one is acknowledged by I. S. elſewhere, to bee by circumciſion viſibly ſealed upon both ſeeds, as hee termeth them. True it is that as, 2 King. 5. 11. Matth. 8. 3. and 9. 18. Luke 4. 3…. 40. one way of healing was putting on of hands, and prayer, but is all here meant? the Lord bleſſed them, ſcil. in way of cure onelyonly, or the like: other Scriptures mention impoſition of hands, and prayer in that way of curing; true, but here is no mention either of the diſeaſes or of the cure of the little ones following upon Chriſts impoſition of hands, as there is in the other Scriptures in other caſes; no nor is here prayer mentioned: the parents deſired him to pray, Matth. 19. but hee bleſſed them ſaith Marke, whether in prayer way, it's not ſaid, yea ſince the Scriptures mention theſe acts of bleſſing, and impoſition of hands in way of ratification of covenant right, and priviledges of the covenant of grace as externally, at leaſt, the heritage of ſuch and ſuch, witneſſe that Gen. 27. 17. and 28. 1. 3, 4. and 48. 14, 15, 16. why ſhould not wee on better grounds look at this as comprehended in this act of Chriſt? and why is I. S. ſo uncharitable to limit the requeſts of theſe pious perſons intreating Chriſt to pray, indefinitely, for the little ones: that this was onelyonly to move him to deſire temporall things for them? Chriſt doth not ſeeme to make any ſuch interpretation of their requeſt when hee bleſſed them, as Marke ſaith, what was that onelyonly in regard of temporals? who would limit Chriſts bleſſing within ſo ſhort a compaſſe? nor was it the Diſciples uſe to hinder, but further the cure of perſons children brought for that end, as the inſtances in Marke 9. Matth. 15. ſhew.
Object. But if you make Infants of inchurched beleevers to bee actuall members of a viſible Church, doe you not deſtroy the uſuall definition of a viſible Church; given by Divines, that it's a company of perſons profeſſing the faith, &c.
Anſw. Muſculus, Aretius, Melancton, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Dr. Ames, Mr. Cotton, Dr. Whittaker, Peter Martyr, & generally all our Divines which define a viſible Church ſeverally, but in ſubſtance to like purpoſe, they yet make that no undermining of their owne doctrine, de eccleſia, or of the deſcriptions viſibilis eccleſiae which they doe give; when the ſame authors maintaine from Scripture grounds that ſuch Infants are actually members of the viſible Church, and externally in the covenant of grace, and ſuch as are to bee baptized: yea ſuch Infants being of the Church; It is not therefore not a company of profeſſors of the faith, ſince Infants are fideles, as they are rationalls, as ſome ſay, ſcil. actu primo, non ſecundo; yea they confeſſe and avouch the Lord in their parents avouching of him, as they did of old, Deut. 26. 16, 17, 18. and 29. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. they promiſed to ſtand to thoſe conditions in their parents promiſe made with reſpect to them.
Object. But if they are of the Church, and in the covenant, and have right to the Seale, then to both as well as to one, to the Lords Supper as well as Baptiſme.
Anſw. We do not ſay they are compleat members of the Church, but incompleat as Ames ſpeaketh to this purpoſe in his Medullâ, & having intereſt in the Church and covenant, wee ſay they have right to the initiatory Seale: but not therefore to all memberly priviledges of voting in Church cenſures, elections, admonitions, &c. even growne perſons that are with us as tranſient members by communion with other Churches, yet are not reckoned as in full Church communion with us, in all Churches priviledges, as in chuſing officers, cenſuring offenders, &c. Nor will Mr. B. his paralleling of Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper prove that if to bee admitted by Church intereſt unto the one, then alſo unto the other: for ſuppoſe one, and the ſame thing bee ſealed, yet not by one and the ſame way: the former onelyonly being the initiatory ſeale of covenant and Church intereſt, not the latter: nor is it true that the ſame preparations is required to the former as to the latter: ſince no where ſpoken ſo excluſively of perſons to bee baptized as to come to the Lords Supper, Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo no otherwiſe, let him eate; nor doth it follow that becauſe there is but one excommunication, there is but one communion; excommunication being properly of perſons in full communion of all Church priviledges in this or that Church where the offence is committed. For to inſtance in no other caſe, but in that of a brother in another Church which is in Church communion in Mr. B's Church by vertue of communion of Churches, yet not in compleat memberſhip, & full communion of all Church priviledges there: he offendeth; will Mr. Blackwood now put him out of Church communion with his Church by actuall cenſure from his Church? I ſuppoſe not: in that the partie hath not perſonally ſubmitted yet to the Churches power: but they will withdraw communion rather: this then is a different way of diſcommunicating, and by Mr. B's grounds, ergo argueth a different communion, and ſo not the ſame, which was that hee aſſayed to prove; nor doe his proofes evince but that others were baptized then did partake of the Lords Supper.
Object. Before wee paſſe further, let mee remove another objection which I meet with, ſcil. that if wee make Infants members of a viſible Church, which doe nothing from whence to denominate the ſame, but are meerely paſſive: It will follow that there may bee a viſible Church, conſiſting onelyonly of Infants of beleevers. For a number of viſible members make a viſible Church.
Anſw. This followeth not, ſince the maine force of ſuch denomination lyeth in the growne Citizens of God, which uſe in all Citie acts publike to carry it perſonally, and not from the children, which yet are free Deuiſons. As for a Church of onelyonly Infants: it's not ſuppoſable their Church right depending upon inchurched parents; nor are the Infants ſuch perfect members of the Church as others: nor do a number of beleevers regularly, make a viſible politicall Church, but in ſuch a way of actuall combining together either explicitly or implicitely, as in all other bodies politique. Whence a more peculiar relation one to another, and a peculiar ground of memberly care for, & power one over another, in a brotherly way to watch over, or ſeaſonably to admoniſh each other, and the like.
SECT. III.
TO conclude, let ſuch as oppoſe us in this doctrine of the faederall and Church holineſſe of inchurched beleevers little ones, conſider of the abſurdities which their oppoſite Doctrine expoſeth them unto.
As firſt, the deniall of any ordinary way or meanes of the ſalvation of beleevers Infants, as being neither actually in the viſible Church, out of which ordinarily there is no ſalvation, nor being actually any of them in the covenant of grace, ſo much as externally, and ſo excluded from any ordinary meanes, or way, or eſtate of ſalvation, as before in part wee ſhewed: The promiſes being made to the Church, and the covenant being the Spirits inſtrument, by which to convey good unto ſuch as ordinarily partake of it. Even before the world was: God, ordered all good to bee conveyed to us in a way, and by virtue of his covenant, therefore alſo called the everlaſting covenant, and Goſpel, Heb. 13. 20. Revel. 14. 6. hence God was ſaid to bee in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelfe, 2 Cor. 5. 19. hence eternall life ſaid to bee promiſed before the world was, Tit. 1. 2. Hence that, Epheſ. 3. 8, 9. even Chriſt himſelfe is his peoples no otherwiſe then in way of covenant, Eſay 42. 6. and 49. 6, 7, 8. his blood is the blood of the everlaſting covenant, no intereſt in it, nor in himſelfe, but by way of covenant with it ſeales, as that wherein, and whereby ſalvation is ingaged, Heb. 13. 20. mans ſalvation is onelyonly in his name, Act. 4. 12. and reconciliation in his blood, Coloſ. 1. 19, 20, 21. and that blood is the blood of the covenant as before, ſee Zach. 9. 11. hee is a mediator of the new covenant, and Teſtament, Heb. 9. 15. Heb. 12. 24. if beleevers Infants have not intereſt in that covenant, no intereſt in him as Mediator: for hee is no other Mediator but of ſuch a covenant, his buſineſſe as Mediator is to confirme a covenant to ſuch to whom hee is a Mediator, Deut. 9. 24. Rom. 15. 8. none can partake of the Spirit, nor any influence of it but by the promiſes, 2 Pet. 1. 4. nor of a glorious reſurrection, but by virtue of, I am their God, Luke 20. 36, 37. nor of glory, but by virtue of the ſame, Heb. 11. 16. ſee of both, Act. 26. 6, 7. if therefore that ſpecies or ſort of perſons, covenant inchurched parents Infants, are excluded from right in the covenant, unleſſe they come actually and perſonally to beleeve therein: actum eſt de ſalute eorum, they are given for loſt irrecoverably, and all the individuall Infants of ſuch perſons are left in as bad a caſe.
Secondly, that ſort of growne gentiles being ſuppoſed onelyonly to bee made nigh by the blood of Chriſt in covenant, and Church reſpects actually: it will argue that that ſort onelyonly were actually ſtrangers before, & not their children with them, not only individually, but ſpecifically conſidered, ſince the ſame ſorts at leaſt of Gentiles, formerly ſtrangers, are made nigh, Eph. 21. 11, 22, 13. compared.
Thirdly, then is it ſuppoſed that Chriſt tooke downe the partition wall which ſtood betweene growne Jewes and adult Gentiles, but as for the beleeving Gentiles Infants, either there was no ſuch partition wall betwixt them and their parallels the Jewiſh Infants inchurched, or if there were, it ſo farre remaines untaken downe as concerning that ſort of Infants.
Fourthly, then Divine juſtice is ſuppoſed to have a larger latitude in involving the little ones of ſuch as reſpect the Covenant under the expreſſions and viſible diſpenſations of divine diſpleaſure, as in Caines, Iſhmaels, Eſau's, the Jewes rejection together with their little ones; then divine grace hath in the expreſſions and diſpenſations thereof, unto the little ones of ſuch as tooke hold thereof; contrary to all former examples: how long did God continue externall adoption, and ſon-ſhip in Seths line, Gen. 6. 1. how long in Abrahams, Iſaacs and Jacobs, Rom. 9. 4. and not rejecting them till rebelling univerſally, and fatally?
Fiftly, then it's ſuppoſed, that there are two covenants of grace, one with them of old, another with us now, eſſentially different, which is abſurd as before was ſhewed, and may bee further evinced in that baptiſme, that new way of initiatory ſealing of the covenant, when firſt inſtituted, it was inſtituted preciſely with ſole reſpects to the Jewes, John 1. 33. Matth. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. John 4. 1. compared with Matth. 10. 5, 6. to ſhew that there was no other covenant to be ſealed by baptiſme, then that which was made with the Jewes in the ſubſtance of it, Luke 24. 44, 45, 46, 47. Act. 2. 38, 39. the ſame promiſe firſt ſealed by baptiſme to them before was to them afarre off, and no other to them afarre off to bee ſealed by baptiſme then that promiſe which was to them, and to their children; now if one covenant eſſentially, then either the Jewes children were not in covenant, no not ſo much as externally; contrary to what wee ſhewed before from Acts 2. and in the concluſions laid downe: or if they were, it was meerely ceremonious; now ſuppoſing ceremony in the way of ſealing, by circumciſing of the fleſh of their foreskin; yet what ceremony was in the principall part of the covenant it ſelfe, I will bee a God to thee and to thy ſeed after thee in their generations? or if it were one part of the covenant, then, but is now aboliſhed by Chriſt, then it ſeemes Chriſt by his comming hath aboliſhed one materiall part of the covenant of grace, without any other thing equivalent to parents as covenant parents in ſtead thereof.
Sixtly, then God is made a reſpector of perſons looking at Jewes with theirs in covenant reſpects, but not ſo eying covenant inchurched Gentiles: Yea hee is made to ſpeake things at large, to bee a God to all the families of the earth, Jer. 31. 1. yet when it commeth to bee Analyſed, he is not a covenant God to any more then perticular perſons actually beleeving onelyonly: no covenant reſpect is had ſo much as externally, no not ſo much as to the choyceſt part and prop of the families, ſcil. children.
Seventhly, then is all former diſtinction, ever uſed to bee ſo carefully obſerved, and held forth, and mentioned, laid aſide. Seed of the woman, and of the Serpent in the younglings of both are confounded, no diſtinction of ſonnes of God, and of men, of ſeed of Iſaac and Iſhmael in the Infant part thereof. No Church diſtinction of children cleane or incleane; Albeit, that wee mentioned not to the State, but Church at Corinth, as a Church to whom the contrary was noted as abſurd; elſe even the children were as Pagans uncleane, but now they are holy. So Acts 2. To you, and your children, not to others; as afterwards: actually to others with theirs Some onelyonly were nigh in covenant, and politicall Church reſpects; the reſt farre off: nay doe not C. B. Hen. Den, and ſome others ground upon Rom. 5. 18. whereby to put beleevers children in the ſame eſtate without any difference, as ſuch, from any others children? Nay C. B. would know why Turkes, and beleevers Infants being alike free from actuall ſinne and guilt of originall, that they may not partake of the ſame benefit of free grace, and albeit in them there bee ſomething worthy of damnation, yet it appeares not from Scripture that any were damned for originall ſinne onelyonly, and would know why wee ſhould not thinke as much of Infants in generall, dying infants, as was ſaid of Davids child, 2 Sam. 12. 23. thought by Divines to bee ſaved, bringing Rom. 5. 18. for a proofe of ſuch generall redemption of dying Infants. Strange charitie beyond all bounds of regular judgement, to all Infants dying, and none to beleevers Infants in generall, ſo much as of their externall intereſt in the covenant; but doth Mr. B. expound deaths reigne over Infants, Rom. 5. 14. to bee onelyonly reſtrained to that of the firſt death? or might Babylons little ones bee accurſed if not under wrath, as ſuch? doth Mr. B. imagine that all the Infants deſtroyed in the flood, in Sodom and Gomorrah, in the laſt deſtruction of Jeruſalem, &c. that it is ſo much as probable they that were ſaved? are all by nature the children of wrath, and yet all dying in that eſtate, and under no covenant of grace, ſo much as externally it is, ſo much as probable that all ſuch are ſaved? Is there any Mediation of Chriſt, but as a Mediator of a covenant? and are Turkes Infants under the covenant, when as their parents are not? were all Gentiles of old, yong and old, being ſtrangers from the covenants of promiſe and of the Church, without God, and Chriſt, and hope: and now the caſe is ſo altered that the chrildren of ſtrangers from the covenant are to bee judged hopefull? Doth Mr. B. ſtartle at 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of beleevers, yea though dying Infants, yet as beleevers children, they are no more but civilly cleane, and in covenant reſpects as profane, yet are Pagans children cleane in reſpect of Covenant mercy? for elſe how can they bee ſaved as before wee proved? as for Rom. 5. 18. our Divines have uſed to anſwer Arminians, that [all] is taken for [many] as before, verſ. 15. But here Mr. B. in the caſe of dying Infants will have it univerſall: and if univerſally true of dying Infants, why not ſo of all living Infants, why not of all men ſimply, where will there bee a reſtraint? If all men ſimply, in one ſort of perſons dying bee underſtood, and not all men that is many: whereas wee are uſed to bee upbraided with the abſurditie of univerſall redemption; I feare Mr. B's doctrine rather. And ſo much of the firſt part of this diſcourſe touching the covenant and Church eſtate and right of Church members children.