Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 17

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2 · Section 17

p. 221SECT. XVII,

The 31. Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture Proof, &c. is answered, and Mark 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism, and his description of visible Church-membership is considered, and his Argument from Deut. 29. shewed to be insufficient.

THere are yet some other Texts which are brought by Paedobaptists out of the New Testament, for an institution and practice of infant-baptism. Mr. B. Plain Scripture Proof of infant-baptism, part. 1. cap. 31. brings Mark 9. 36, 37. to prove that, Christ hath expresly assured us that he hath not repealed the privilege of infants visible Church-membership, and upon it fals to his Rhetorick, and tels us of his boldness in adventuring on this rule. All which I judg frivolous; nor needs it any further answer, there being no new Argument, and what he before spake of that Scripture is answered before Sect. 15. where it is shewed that Mark 9. 37. by [little childe] is not meant one that is so in respect of age, but in respect of quality, and that the receiving is not meant of baptism, but entertainment in receiving the Doctrine brought, and shewing kindness to their persons.

But he adds, And it is not once but oft that he hath thus manifested his will: in the very next Chapter he doth it more fully yet, Mark 10. 14, 15, 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them; and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them: but when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said to them, Suffer ye little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe he shall not enter therein: and he took them up in his arms, p. 222put his hands on them, and blessed them. And is not here enough to satisfie us yet, that he doth not cast all infants in the world out of his visible Kingdom or Church? but that it is his will they should be admitted? Will any say that it was not infants in the former Text and this that Christ speaks of? Did he take any but infants into his arms? Was it not plainly them that he did bid them receive (in the former Chapter) and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him? And was it not them that he bid should be suffered to come (that is to be brought) and was it not them that he blessed?

Answ. Mr. M. in his Sermon had alleged this Tex to prove, that the infants of believers even while they are infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men. I answered, 1. It is doubtfull whether those little children Mark 10. 14. were infants. 2. Whether it be said of them, Is the Kingdom of Heaven. 3. Whether they were believers infants. 4. Whether the Kingdom of Heaven be said to be of them in their present estate or their future. 5. The reason why of them is the Kingdom of Heaven may be referred to Christs blessing, not to their Parents faith 6. That Christs action in this was proper to him, as the great Prophet, and extraordinary, and therefore not fit to make a constant rule for an ordinance, and if it be to that use it is more apposite to establish confirmation than baptism, sith Christ did neither baptize, nor appoint them to be baptized, though he said of them is the Kingdom of Heaven. In all likelihood, if infantbaptism had been according to Christs minde he would have taken this occasion to appoint it, which he not doing, it is very probable that he would not have it done.

To all which Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 221, 222. replied onelyonly this, that they were dictates and brought in to little purpose, whereas there is nothing sayd by me without reason and some proof, and yet I being a respondent it was more than my business necessitated me to produce so much, a denial being sufficient for the respondent. And whereas he saith I grant enough to serve his turn, that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to those infants and concludes that their infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace, and some of them actually partakers of it, and this is enough for him, and that more than this cannot be said of grown p. 223men who are visible professors. To it I say, Though I should grant that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to these infants, yet it serves not his turn to prove thence that the infants of believers are visible Church-members, and that believers infants have right to baptism, except it be proved that their parents were believers, that the Kingdom of Heaven for that reason did belong to them, and in this thing was intended by Christ, the establishing a settled rule for infants interest in the Church and baptism. Capacity of inward grace is not denied to infants, no not to Turks infants: whether any of them be partakers actually of inward grace is not determined: nor is it true that no more can be sayd of grown men: for the making of visible profession may be said of grown m…n, which cannot be said of infants.

But Mr. B. is eager for infant-baptism as conclusible hence, lets see what he saies. First he begins with his Rhetorick, which commonly supplies the want of proof. Then he heaps …p seven or eight inte…rogations, and takes all for granted which he demands. But to them I say.

To the first, 1. I except against his expression which infinuates as if by denying that infants are visible Church-members they were cast out of Christs visible Church, whereas it is one thing not to reckon them in and another to cast them out, which is but once used in Scripture 3 Iohn 10. and this phrase serves onelyonly to provoke passion. 2. It is so far from being true that there is enough in those Texts to satisfy that Christ would have infants admitted into his visible Church, that it is rather true on the contrary that there is enough against it. To his other questions, I answer. 1. By denying that they were infants he would have received Mark 9. 37. 2. whether they were infants he took in his arms, whom he would not to be kept from him, but suffered to come to him, and whom he blessed, it is uncertain. Piscator, Estius, &c. conceive they were young ones that could come of themselves being called. But be it granted they were infants, lets see what Mr. B. gathers thence.

Hence, saith he, I argue thus. 1. If Christ would have us receive infants in his name, then we must receive them as belonging to him and his Church. But he would have us to receive them in his name▪ therefore &c. 2. If he that receiveth an p. 224infant in his name receiveth himself, then some infants are to be received in his name; and those that refuse them sin: But the former is true, therefore the later.

Answ. 1. Both the conclusions might be granted and yet Mr. Bs. cause not gained, the former, because infants may belong to Christ and his Church, to wit, the invisible, and yet it not be proved thence they are visible Church-members; the later, because they may be received in Christs name as by harbouring, feeding them, and yet not be admitted to baptism. 2. The minor in both Syllogismes is false: For the Text Mark 9. 37. speaks not of infants in age to be received, but of believers that are humble, and low in condition as infants, particularly of his Apostles.

3. Saith Mr. B. if Christ was much displeased with those that kept particular infants from visible access to him, then (though they could not keep them from his visible grace) I think he will be much more displeased with those that keep all the infants in the world from visible access to him in his Church now (though they cannot keep them from the invisible Church:) But the former is true: Therefore the later.

Answ. The conclusion is granted. For what visible access to Christ in his Church now can be but by profession of faith I know not. If Mr. B. know of any that keep infants from professing faith let him threaten them, and spare not. But that which he tels us that we keep infants from visible access to Christ, because we baptize them not for want of profession of faith, is but a squib that may affright women and children, when intelligent persons laugh at it.

4. Saith he, If Christ command us to suffer them to come, and not to forbid them, then those sin against his express Command that will not suffer them to come but do forbid them, (for it is a standing Command and speaks of infants, and not of these individuals onelyonly; and there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples) But &c. therefore &c.

Answ. The conclusion is granted without any detriment to our cause: we forbid not any to come to Christ. There's no coming to Christ no was those little children came, that is, to come to his person for blessing, cure, or teaching by himself in the flesh. There's p. 225no coming to Christ now but by hearing his word, and believing in him, as John 6. 35. is expressed. If any forbid infants to do so let him bear the blame. But we forbid infants to be baptized till they come to Christ, that is, till they believe, and we are sure we have the Scripture for us, Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Ephes. 5. 4. Gal. 3. 26, 27. A thing so known that all that heretofore baptized infants did take this as unquestionable, that believers onelyonly are to be baptized, and therefore to justifie infant-baptism they run into wilde fancies, as that they believe in the Church, in their Parents, in their sureties, in their being baptized. But Mr. Bs. hold is in his Parenthesis, against which I except, 1. that his speech of [admitting into his Church, and to be his Disciples] supposeth that a person is first admitted into Christs Church, and then to be his Disciple, whereas no man is rightly admitted into Christs Church, who is not first a Disciple. 2. That he saith, This Luke 18. 16. is a standing Commandment. But this we must take on Mr. Bs. word, theres nothing in the Text, or in Mr. Bs. writing to prove it. Nor is it likely. For if so, me thinks the Apostles and the Writers of the New Testament should not have been so negligent as neither to observe this command after this time, nor to have recorded any act done by the Apostles according to that command. 3. That Chists speech is of the species of infants, and not of these individuals onelyonly. 1. Is said without proof, yea it is more probable that foreign, is as much as, Suffer these little children to come to me, and that because, as Paedobaptists urge, foreign, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, (which is the reason of Christs injunction) is meant of those infants. 2. Were it granted not to be meant of those individuals onelyonly, yet this is all that can be thence proved, that if after that time other infants were brought to Christ in that manner to be touched by him, they should be suffered. It may be granted, that there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church. But this is enough to prove that there is now no such visible admittance to Christ as those Mark 10. 14 had, who were admitted to Christs person to be touched by him, and not into his visible Church by baptism.

5. Saith Mr. B. If of such be the Kingdom of God, then of such is the visible Church: but the former is true. Therefore, &c.

p. 226Answ. The consequence is denied. Of infants in the mothers womb, as Jacob, John Baptist, &c. is the Kingdom of God, and yet the visible Church is not of such.

But saith Mr. B. Here they have two cavils against the plain sense of the Text, 1. By [such] is meant [such for doc…ble…ess and humility] To which I answer, 1. Then it seems they are so docible and humble, that the Kingdom belongs to them. For if it belong to others, because they are such as them, then it must needs belong to others also.

Answ. Mr. Bs. censure of the Answers I gave as cavils is as the rest of this his Dispute rash and inconsiderate. For the very words Mark 10. 15. do directly▪ lead to that sense I give, and the words of Christ Matth. 18. 3, 4. plainly expound wherein they that enter into the Kingdom of God must be like children. But to the matter of his Answer, 1. The conclusion is granted, nor was it ever denyed by me, that of some infants is the Kingdom of God, and particularly of those whom Christ blessed, but yet not because of their docibleness and humility, but because of Christs blessing. Nor do I allow Mr. Bs. consequence, that if the Kingdom did belong to others, because they are such as them, then it must needs belong to them also. For the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to others, because they are such as them in the properties common to them with other children. But the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to them as blessed by Christ, not in respect of docibleness and humility. It may be it will be said, that then little children have those properties for which of them may be the Kingdom of God. I answer, it doth not follow: but this onelyonly follows that there is such teachableness and humility in little children in other respects, which other men imitating and expressing in spiritual things, and so becoming such as they are by analogy and resemblance, in that respect belong to the Kingdom of God.

2. Saith Mr. B. Doth Christ say, To such as them in this or that respect onelyonly, and not to them, (or saith he) not in general, To such? even to such as he took in his arms and blessed? He would not have taken up, and blessed any, for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed; he would not have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility and innocency. If Christ say, [of such] is the Kingdom, I am bound to take Scripture p. 227in the most extensive sense, till there be a plain reason to necessitate me to restrain it. And therefore must understand it [to such] both of that age, or any other age. Who dare think that the word [to such] is not rather inclusive as to them than exclusive? If I love humble poor men, and my servants keep them from my house because they are poor, and if I chide them for it, and say, Suffer such to come to me, and forbid them not, for my delight is in such: who would so interpret this speech as to think I would exclude them, while I command their admittance? And that I meant other humble ones, and not these?

Answ. Doth Mr. B. say, To such in general in respect of age onelyonly belongs the Kingdom of God. If he do say so (as his words seem to import) then it follows, that to every infant, whether of believers or unbelievers, elect or reprobate, belongs the Kingdom of God: If not, then he must say as I say, if he will speak truth, that 1. To those infants belonged the Kingdom in this respect onelyonly as they were blessed by Christ, or elect. 2. If it be applied to other infants, it can be applied to no others but such as are blessed by Christ, or elect. 3. And for other persons, that under the term [of such] are meant also persons of age like them in humility and teachableness is so manifest from v. 15. Matth. 18. 3. 4. 5. that it is nothing but cavilling in Mr. B. thus to carp at my plain and clear exposition of the words agreeable to the most approved expositors, as Beza Annot. ad Matth. 19. 14. talium foreign] id est, horum & similium ut supra 18. Piscat: sch▪ in Matth. 19. 14. talium] foreign, quales scilicet sunt isti pueruli, nempe credentes in me & demissè de se sen…ientes▪ confer. supra, c. 18. 2. & seq. that I omit others. Neither do I, nor need I say, that Christ took them, or blessed the little ones for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed, or that he might, by like reason with mine, have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility. And though Mr. Bs. rule may be questioned, whether a man be bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate him to restrain it, yet I gainsay it not, to understand [to such] both of that age or any other, and I allow that Christ meant those, and other humble ones, and that the term [of such] is both inclusive, including more than those particular little ones; and exclusive, of those that are not elect or p. 228blessed 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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, p. 229then 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 onelyonly prove those infants to be of the visible Church who are elect. 2. It can prove it onelyonly 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, p. 230the 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 p. 231the 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 onelyonly 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] [foreign, 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 foreign, or General assembly at the last day, for Heb. 12. 23. these are joined together, foreign, the General assembly and Church, or as it is termed 2 Thess. 2. 1. foreign, our gathering together unto Christ, at which time the visible Church and invisible will be all one visible company, foreign one sheepfold one Sh…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, p. 232Christs 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 onelyonly 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, its 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 Cu…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 p. 233Church, 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 onelyonly 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 he added! If you ask me, what is it that directly or immediatly constituteth them such members. I answer, their visible or audible, that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ: This (performed by the parent for them) is it on their part; supposing Christs title to them, and the offer of himself in Covenant.

Answ. I grant that the visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ doth make the persons so ingaging freely, seriously, soberly, and understandingly, visible Church-members. But that the parents performing this for the childe doth make the infants such directly and immediately, is an assertion not proved by Mr. B. nor is it true, nor consistent with the descriptions of the visible Church and sayings about it, which Protestants of note give, nor doth it as here and elsewhere set down by Mr. B. yield any sure ground to know certainly any particular infant to be a visible Church-member. That I may make good these in their order. Two things are supposed and one thing named as directly and immediately constituting infants visible Church-members. The things supposed are, 1. Christs title to them, 2. The offer of himself in Covenant to them. But there is nothing but ambiguity in these expressions. For 1. it is uncertain whether he mean that these are supposed when the parent doth perform the engagement p. 234for the childe that Christ hath a title to them, and that he doth offer himself in Covenant to them: or whether he mean that the parents engagement doth constitute the childe a visible Church member, if Christ have a title to it and offer himself in Covenant to it. If in the former sense, then it had been enough to have mentioned the parents act without that supposition; if in the later, then what ever the parents act be yet no man is certain of the childes visible Church-membership by it alone without the other two. 2. What title of Christ to them he means whether by election and gift of his Father to him, or by his Spirit, which he that hath not is none of his, Rom. 8. 9. or what other title he means I am uncertain. 3. What Covenant he means whether the absolute Covenant of grace belonging to the elect, or the conditional Covenant to all upon condition of faith, or the national Covenant made to Abraham, and the people of Israel, o… ▪ what other besides I cannot tell how to determine. 4. How the Covenant is offered except by Preaching to them or by some secret work of the Spirit I cannot imagine. 5. It is somewhat uncertain whether the external engagement that may make the infant a visible Church-member must not be of a parent that is a real and sincere believer, or whether a dogmatical faith serves turn. Sure in his plain Scrip. &c. chap. 29. part. 1. He makes a real faith necessary in the parent to that sanctification without which the childe is not holy, that is a visible Church-member. 6. Whether he make the parents engagement to constitute immediately infants born or unborn also visible Church-members is uncertain. Lets see what we can gather elsewhere I cannot for present find a place where he more fully expresseth himself than in his plain scrip. &c. pag. 336. of the first edition, whereas saith he, some stick at it that I make the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent; I answer them. 1. That it is evident in all the Scripture that God putteth a very great difference between the children of the faithfull and other mens. Which I grant, but withall that this is true onelyonly of the sincerely faithfull and not onelyonly inexternal profession, and yet not so as to count any a visible Church-member in the Christian Church for the parents faith. 2. Saith he, that he maketh such promises to them, and giveth them such privileges as I have exprest p. 235in this Book. But if he mean by the promises those of the Covenant of grace, I say, they are made onelyonly to elect and true believers, if other promises of temporal blessings they are not made to the children of meer seeming believers but true believers, nor do they at all reach to visible Church-membership or Justification of children. These privileges are no where promised to the children of believing Christians though sincere meerly because of their parents faith. And therefore that which he adds. 3. That this is to them as they are the children of the people who believe, is false, And when he saith. 4. And that he never requireth any condition inherent in the infant, that I finde in Scripture, yet others conceive an inherent condition required in an infant Heb. 12. 14. and elsewhere. But he adds, And doth not this plainly tell us, that the parents faith is the condition? if the parent be a believer, the childe is entered the Covenant, the father entering it for him, and his Deut. 29. If the parent be not a believer, the childe is left out: And what other condition can be imagined?

Answ. If the Scripture had required no inherent condition in the infant, yet it had not followed that the parents faith is the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification. For there are other ways, to wit, their election, Christs death for them, which are a vouched as sufficient to their justification without the consideration either of any inherent condition in the infant, or the parents faith. Nor is it true, that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant, the Father entering it for him and his, and that if the parent be not a believer, the childe is left out. For if it be meant of the Covenant of grace it is most false, that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant. Esau was the childe of Isaac a believer, Ishmael of Abraham, yet neither entered into the Covenant of grace, neither justified by the parents faith? if it were so then they were entered into the Covenant of grace and justified, and after out…d, which infers falling from grace. Not is there any such Covenant of visible Church-membership which if the parent be a believer the childe i… entered in. Nor is there a word Deut. 29. to prove it. There is nothing there set down but a narration of Moses his …enewing the Covenant with the children of Israel in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. It is p. 236true it is said v. 10, 11, 12, 13. They stood all before the Lord, the Commandors and the men, then the litle ones, wives, strangers, hewers of wood drawers of water, that they might enter into Covenant, but that, 1. The parents peculiarly as parents did enter into Covenant for their children appears not: but rather that the entering of the Covenant was by the Rulers in behalf of the subject, as the league with the Gibeonites was by the Princes in behalf of Israel, whereto they were bound Josh. 9. 15, 19. nor is there any consideration of a Father entering into Covenant for his childe more than of a Husbands entering into covenant for his wife, or a Masters entering into Covenant for his servant, and therefore if this fact were good to prove, if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant, the Father entering for him and his: it is good to prove that if the Husband, or Master be a believer, the wife, and servant are entered into Covenant, the Husband and Master entering it for them and theirs, and so wives, and servants shall be visible Church-members, as well as infants of believers, by the faith of Husbands and Masters. 2. If the parents faith procure this privilege for the child then either because it is his childe, and then it procures it for the childe while it is his childe though the childe be at years and an infidel, for then it is his childe, or else upon condition the childe agree to it, but then the privilege belongs not to infants, and there is an inherent condition required, to wit, the childes consent besides the parents faith: if it be said that it procures it to the childe while a… infant, but not when it comes to years how can this be true that the parents faith or covenanting should immediately and directly constitute them visible Church-members when infants because they are their children, and the covenant is made with them and their children (as they say) and yet they not visible Church-members while they are children? surely, the immediate cause continuing, the effect continues, and therefore if the parents faith with the covenant) make the childe in infancy a visible Church-member it must also make it a visible Church-member at years though an infidel. 3. Whereas it is supposed by Mr. B. that the parents as believers entered the covenant Deut. 29. it rather appears by Moses his preface v. 2, 3, 4. that▪ Moses did therefore draw them into this solemn Covenant, because they were to that day unbelievers, p. 2374. It is false, that this entering into covenant did make them Church-members. For. 1. The end of it was to prevent them from backsliding v. 18. to Idolatry, and to prevent Gods forsaking them thereupon, v. 13. 2. They were Church-members before both by Gods special separating of the whole nation to be his people, and the solemn Covenant at mount Horeb, and so were members of that Church as part of that nation. 3. If this entering into covenant made them there Church-members visible then it made their posterity also then visible Church-members, for with them also was that covenant made, v. 14▪ 15. and so persons should be made visible Church-members afore they are born. 5. If it were true, that that covenanting made them visible, Church-members of that Church, yet it advantageth no whit to prove infants now visible members of the Christian Church, which is not national as that was, nor gathered by the chief Magistrate as that was, nor injoyned such a national Covenant as that, but consisting of particular believers of all nations, gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel and voluntary personal covenanting for themselves onelyonly testified by their being baptized into Christ. If any ask whether a national covenant or a covenant of parents for children be now allowable? I answer, I deny not but such a national or parental covenant may be allowed, and in some cases covenient, yet I say that it makes not all the subjects and children Church-members, nor bindes them without their consent any farther than the matter of the covenant it self bindes. As for that which Mr. B. saith, if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out, it is false, if we understand it in respect of Church-membership of children at years they may be in the Church visible though their parents were unbelievers and left out of the Church though believers; if of justification, it is false both of infants and children of years. And it is utterly untrue that in the Christian Church children are made visible Church-members by parents faith, or left out because of their unbelief. For, 1. There is no word of Scripture that saith so. The three Texs Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16▪ 17. &c. 1 Cor. 7. 14. are fully discussed already in the first part of this review, and what Mr. Blake hath replied shall be examined (God willing) in that which follows. 2. No one passage of the New Testament doth shew that any infant was p. 238reckoned for a visible Church-member of the Christian Church in the New Testament, but many shew they were not. 3. If the infant children of the faithfull had been accounted in the Apostles times visible members of the Christian Church there had been some thing done by the Apostles and other holy men to have preserved their right, but no practise of baptism on them, nor any other act can be produced that the Apostles or other holy men did to preserve such a right, Ergo. 4. The Covenant of the Gospel is with particular persons made believers out of all nations, their gathering by Preaching the Gospel to them, which evidently shew that God intended to take in persons into the Christian Church upon their own faith, and not in a national way as he did the Church of the Jews. 5. The Texts (besides the three forenamed) brought by the Assembly Confess. of faith, ch. 25. art. 2. to wit, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 17. 7. and the Texts brought by Mr. B. (not here examined) to wit, Matth. 23. 37, 38, 39. Revel. 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. & 7. 22. Rom. 4. 11. Exod 20. 6. Iosh. 7. 25, 26. Deut 13. 12, 13, 14. Psal. 37. 26. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16, 17. Deut. 28. 4, 18, 32, 41. Mal. 2. 15▪ are so palpably impertinent to prove the visible Church-membership of infants now, that I am in a demur with my self, whether it be fit for me to bestow any more pains in shewing the impertinency of them. 6. The speeches of Protestants of note do make the persons own profession that sign whereby they are judged, and from whence they are termed of the visible Church. Synops. Profess. Leydens. Disp. 40. sect. 32. Ecclesia visibilis appellatur, non tam quia homines ipsi visibiles sunt, sed quia ipsorum ordo, professio & communio sensibus exponuntur. Dr. Prideaux Lect. 9. sect. 3. visibilis dicitur Ecclesia ratione communionis sensibilis membrorum inter se. Mr. Marshall himself in the Sermon at the Spi…le, April 1652. stiled by Mr. B. that late excellent, honest solid Sermon for unity, pag. 15. hath these words. Secondly, that part of the Church which is upon the earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it ly in internal grace, which cannot be seen, in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church▪ but now as the same Church and members doth make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eys and ears of others in that respect it is called a p. 239visible Church; but the visible is not one Church and the invisible another Church, but meerly the same Church under several denominations, the one from their constituting graces, the other from the external profession of them.

There was lately a printed sheet brought to my hands intituled, The profession of the Church, &c. which is owned by Mr. Richard Baxter in his Christian concord, in the Preface of which are these words. And because Ministers cannot well know who are members of the Churches, and who not, and so must be ignorant of the extent of their charges and duties without an expression of their peoples consent. Hence I argue, 1. If Ministers cannot know who are members of the Churches and who not without an expression of their peoples consent, then they cannot know infants to be members of the Churches, who express no consent. 2. Then the parents faith upon which they were baptized without their own consent expressed doth not make them visible Church-members, for if it did they might know them by their memory and registers that they were Church-members. 3. Then they are not rightly baptized by him without their consent. 4. Then it is not true which Mr. B. writeth plain Scripture &c. pag. 280. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eys? Are not Bewdley, Kederminster (meaning all the people …lder and yonger) &c. and England▪ (till of lat… ) as fully Christs Disciples and so Church-members, a… the Jews were in Covenant with God and so Church-members? which if true Mr. B. may know who at Kederminster are Church-members without their expressed consent, even all the inhabitants, and that his charge is extended to all. 5. Then the gift of visible Church-membership is repealed …ith in the Common wealth of Israel all the posterity of Israel were Church-members. 6. By his new course of distinguishing the professing and subscribing parioshi…ers of Kederminster as Church-members from the rest as not his Church-members, he gathers a Church out of a Church and separates some Disciples from others, and doth himself make a like division in his Church (though not in so justifiable a way as he chargeth so fiercely on me and others. Which I conceive to be little less than a retractation of his own tenet about infants vis…e Church-membership, and clearing of his opposites. Lastly, by Mr. Bs. determinations p. 240there is no certain way to know a particular infant to be a visible Church-member. For in his determinations there is no resolution, nor according to his grounds do I think can be given a certain resolution whether the parent be such a one to whom the Covenant is, whether he have that faith which may intitle his childe to visible Church-membership, whether the immediate parents engagement be necessary or a remote parents engagement be sufficient, whether the engagement must be open in the face of the Congregation, or it be sufficient that it be done privately, when it must be, at Baptism, or at some other time, whether it need not be as o… as he hath children to be admitted visible Church-members, whether the baptizer may account him a visible Church-member, whose parents are dead, absent, unable to come, or to express their engagement and so baptize him, which with many other doubt… would …a…d the course of Ministers and people in their profane infant sprinkling, if they did not with a blinde obedience rest on Mr. Bs. unproved dictates, but searched after the truth considerately and impartially. But I pass on.

6. Saith Mr. B. hence I further argue thus: I… Christ were much displeased with his Disciples for keeping infants from him, then he took it as a part of their revealed duty that they should not forbid them: But the former is true, therefore the later. Whence I further argue: if it were the Disciples known or revealed duty not to forbid them to come to Christ▪ then they must needs take it also for a revealed truth that infants in specie (and not those numerical onelyonly) should not be forbidden to come, (for they could not know that those individuals should be admitted but by knowing that infants should be admitted) But &c.

Answ. The conclusion of the former argument may be granted, and yet the seque…e of the later argument denied. For they might know it either by some particular sign from Christ or some particular instinct of the Spirit, that it was their duty to permit those infants to come to Christ, and yet not permit any more.

But saith Mr. B. Yea further. 7. If it were the Disciples revealed duty to admit infants to come to Christ for this very reason, because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, then it was no secret but a revealed truth, that of such was the Kingdom of Heaven: But the former is true. For Christ would not be angry p. 241so much with them for not knowing that which was neuer revealed, on for not admitting them when they had no means to know them to have right of admittance. The consequence is evident the … for…, and so … follow … that if it were then a revealed truth, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; then they were visible members of the Church. For that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven (though it be not known of the individuals) do visibly belong to the Church; (as I think none dare deny.)

Answ. 1. According to their exposition who understand [of such] onelyonly those that are like little children in affection, and disposition, and not of those particular little children then brought, much more according to their exposition who by [of such] understand these individual infants and no other, they might know those infants were to be admitted, and yet have no knowledg of an universal rule for admitting… other infants at other times. 2. But be it granted that not onelyonly of those individuals, but also of other infants is the Kingdom of Heaven, yet I deny they were visible Church-members▪ And for his proof, I dare deny that which he f…ndly thinks …n… dare deny, that they that are known to belong to Heaven … visibly belong to the Church. Abraham and … and J… are known to belong to Heaven, yet I do not conceive do visibly belong to the Church. And the same is true of all the spirits of the Just▪ made perfect, of elect infants …born, J…s unce…led &c. I know none …iung to the visible Church but such as sensibly have professed faith in Christ. Am…s: Med. Th. l. 1. …. …1. sect. 24, 25, 26, 27, … militant visibilis …su sc. vel sensu externo. … prae…ect. … Eccl. pag. 246▪ Ecclesia aliquando denominatur, ab…iis q… … quae que ▪ …n sensum incurrunt Piscat …or. …o… ▪ 19. 10. visi…il… appellatur quat…ru… …er…s h…bet no… in oculo… … …. Mr. B. himself Praefest in▪ Morator, sect. 11. By [visible] I m…an th… which is discernible by the understanding, median… sensu. Therefore that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven do not visibly belong to the Church, unless▪ they are known so b… some sensible expression, yea of their own▪ which is not true of infants, much less o… the sort of them, or any sort of being, no sort of beings being visible, but onelyonly singula…s.

p. 242Mr. B. goes on thus, 8. But the chief evidence in the Text lieth here; if because that of such is the Kingdom; therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back; them it must needs be the very species of infants that Christ means, are of the Kingdom, (and not onelyonly the aged humble) but therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back, (and their duty to admit them, or else Christ would not have been much displeased with them) because that of such is the Kingdom; therefore it must needs be infants themselves that are of the Kingdom. The reason of the consequence lieth here; It would be no sin … the Disciples to keep away from Christ those that were … m…er Emble…s of the saved. For else it would have been the Disciples sin to have forbidden all the Sheep or Doves in the countrey to have been brought to Christ to l…y han…s on. This is plain and convincing to me.

Answ. The conclusion i… granted, that it was the infants, if they were infants that were brought to Christ themselves, and not onelyonly the aged humble resembled by them, that are of the Kingdom Mr. B. needed not to have cast away so much pains in …r… ving it against me, who do in my Postscrip… sect▪ … say, I stick not to that Exposition of not including those infants. But I think Mr. B. would prove, that not onelyonly Christ said of those infants, but of the very species of infants is the Kingdom of God▪ Which speech of his hath in it sundry absurditie…. 1. He seems to make infants a distinct species from the aged: whereas in …og…ck [ …, mankinde] is species i… a, the lowest k… in the Predicament of substance; and it is a Rule in that Art▪ …ha… Se… and Age … v…riant speciem, do not vary the kinde. 2▪ When he saith, the very species are of the Kingdom, sith he grants, that by the Kingdom is meant the invisible Church▪ his words s…m to … ▪ that all infants are of the invisible Church. For the very species c…preh…nd all the individuals, and then he must hold… all infants are elect▪ (for onelyonly the elect are of the invisible Church) and if after they be reproba…e then election is rev…cable, and the elect may not be saved. But if he mea… it odely of some of that sort, and particularly all the infants of believers neither is that t…, sith the contrary is manifest in Esau. But if he mean no more than this, that of some elect infants, yea and of others than those particular infants is the Kingdom p. 243of God, I should not stick to grant it, nor need Mr. B. thus trouble himself to prove it, though I think his consequence is not good. For it might be their sin to keep back those infants from Christ, if Christ did by any sign discover his minde to have them brought, though it were not to declare their title, or any other infants title to the Kingdom of Heaven, but onelyonly to use them as Emblems. Nor is Mr. Bs. reason forcible, that then it might have been their sin to have forbidden Sheep and Doves to be brought to Christ. For it may be granted, that this might have been their sin, if Christ had in like manner declared his minde by any sign concerning such Sheep, that they should be brought to him. Mr. Bs. arguing runs upon this supposition, that the Apostles might know it was their duty at all times to permit infants to come to Christ from a general truth, that of all infants (at least of believers) is the Kingdom of God, (which he neither proves, nor can prove) whereas the Apostles fault might be in not heeding some particular thing he had then by some words or other sign made known of those infants then brought, or not considering Christs Office, and constant practice of doing good to all, specially to infirm and diseased persons, such as those infants might be, and as some conceive were, and accordingly brought to be cured by Christ. But Mr. B. is not yet come to that he would have.

9. Saith he, Those that Christ took in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed, were visible members of his Church, and not meer resemblances of such: but some infants Christ took in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed: therefore some infants were members of the visible Church, (and consequently Christ hath not repealed the Church-membership of infants) and they were not meer resemblances of such. For would Christ have blessed so a Sheep or Dove? or are they blessed of Christ, and yet not so much as visible members of his Church? Sure there are none visibly blest without the visible Church. And it was not these onelyonly; for I have proved, it was the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing.

Answ. I do not say, that the infants Christ took in his arms were meer resemblances of visible Church-members, and therefore Mr. B. in seeking to prove it still follows a false sent, proving what is not denied. But the other part of the conclusion is denied by p. 244me [to wit, that some infants were members of the visible Church] and that part of the major, [those that Christ took in his arms, laid his hands on, and blessed, were visible members of his Church] and for his proof, that [none are visibly blest without the visible Church] I deny it, nor doth he bring any thing to prove it but his own words, sure it is so. But I count it false. For Jacob visibly blessed Pharaoh, Gen. 47. 10. and yet Pharaoh was not of the visible Church. When Christ did raise Jairus daughter, heal the daughter of the Syrophoenician, I conceive they had a visible blessing, and yet were not of the visible Church. And if it were the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing, yet there is neither in the Text nor elsewhere a word to prove, it was their duty to admit them to the like blessing by any other than Christ himself, and his own laying hands on them. Or if it were imagined, that Christ intended this should be a Rule to the Disciples for their conferring a like blessing on infants, yet that it must be a Rule to successors, and if to successors, to all Ministers to do it, or that they must do it by baptism, and not rather as the Bishops did it in Confirmation, by laying on of hands, hath not the least shadow of proof; but rather the contrary is more likely. And accordingly Jancerus, & Concilium Senonense, as Chamier tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect. 3. the composers of the Interim, as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 16. lib. 2. cap. 68. pag. 451. relate, gathered the institution of Confirmation from thence.

But Mr. B. adds, And it is yet 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 p. 245infants, 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 p. 246the Kingdom of Heaven. It was such an extraordinary blessing that included the ordinary. If extraordinary blessing the… 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 p. 247them, 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 du…st challenge Mr. T. to answer (as far as modesty would permit a challenge) that is, if Christ had intended onelyonly 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 therefore permit the bringing of all to Christ? Christ had not told them his design before hand to teach them by these Emblems; and when they knew his minde they desisted.

Answ. They might know Prophets did bless persons even little ones, they knew that Matth. 18. 2. Christ had before familiarly used a little childe, and so was not averse from them, they knew or might know that Christ was the great Prophet that was to come into the world, that he made it his work to do good, that he did permit all sorts of persons that came for healing or other blessings to come to him, and therefore it was their fault to hinder Christ in this design, and to hinder any that came to him for his blessing. I neither say that his design was onelyonly to teach humility by these as an Emblem, nor that they knew or might know what use Christ would make of these infants. Mr. Bs. challenge is upon a mistake, as if I affirmed, that Christ would have those infants brought onelyonly to teach humility by them, when the very words he cites are to the contrary. I am weary with answering such meer cavils of a p. 248man, who if he were not set on wrangling, might by heeding my words answer himself.

5. Saith he, If it had been onelyonly for the present design, then Christ would have spoke but of those individual infants, and have said, Suffer those now to come: But it appears from the Text, 1. that it was not those individuals more than others that the Disciples were offended at, or disliked should be brought; but the species, or those infants because infants. 2. And that Christ doth not onelyonly speak against their hindring those individuals, but the species, and lays them down a rule and command for the future as well as for the present that they should suffer little children to come to him, and not forbid them.

Answ. It is in all the Evangelists foreign, which notes the children then brought, and no other, though I deny not but this fact and the reason thereof were a rule for the future as well as for the present, yet not either for the Apostles or any Successors to lay hands on them, or baptize them; but for them, if any more infants were thus brought to Christs person, that his own hands might be layd on them, that they should permit it.

6. Saith Mr. B. And he doth not command this upon the reason of any private design, but because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Answ. Mr. B. still mistakes me, as if I had said [private design] that is a design proper to those infants onelyonly; whereas my words were [present design] which I shew before what it was, and thereby it may be easily conceived I meant such a design as tended to shew his Office, readiness to do good, and interest that infants and such as were like them might have to the Kingdom of Heaven.

7. Saith he, And where Mr. T. saith, It was not from any knowledg they had of their present visible title; I answer, Who said it was? Did Mr. Blake? No; but it was a thing the Disciples ought to have known, that infants are welcom to Christ, and that of such is the Kingdom, and therefore because of such is his Kingdom, they should not be kept from him? God will not be much displeased with men for being ignorant of that which they ought not to know.

Answ. Mr. Blake in his Answer to my letter had said pag. 90. p. 249They (the infants brought to Christ) had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have known, and this he gives as the reason why Christ was so much displeased with the Disciples forbidding them to be brought. To which my words are rightly opposed. Nor is any thing put on Mr. Blake But his own words. If Mr. B. will not say that Christs anger was from any knowledg the Apostles had of the infants present visible title, then he must acknowledg the Apostles had no knowledg of the visible Churchmembership of infants then, or visible title to one Church privilege which shews that in Christs Church no infants were then counted visible Church members, else these could not but know it. Nor is there any thing in the Text that shews that Christ was angry with them for not knowing this, nor did this teaching inform them in this, nor did Christ admit them as Mr. Blake saith, to a Church privilege, nor if it were true that the blessing were a Church privilege common to all Church-members, yet infants were as capable of baptism as of it, sith the institution of baptism is otherwise. To me it is a strong presumption that the Apostles understood not Christs words and deeds as importing Church privilege conferred on those infants which did infer a title to baptism, as Mr. Blake imagins, in that the Apostles did not baptize them, which is confessed by some paedobaptists, and appears both in that no such thing is enjoyned them by Christ, or related as done by them, and what was done to them is related as done by Christ himself who did not baptize John 4. 2. and it is said Matth. 19. 15. when he had put his hands on them he departed thence, and with him his Disciples, as appears by the speeches of them upon occasion of the yong mans conference with Christ, which presently followed. Now if the Apostles knew not such baptizability of infants there is no likelihood that Christs words or blessing proved such baptizability. If they did know it, and yet did them not right, no doubt Christ would have been more angry for their not baptizing them, then for rebuking those that brought them. And whereas Mr. B. blesseth Christ for his discovery concerning infants as he construes it, I bless God that hath shewed me the frivolousnes of Mr. Bs. arguings, and I say of such as are led away with such trifling reasons, as the Apostles sayd 1 Cor 14. 38. If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant. As for his observation in the close p. 250of the chapter its like the rest. For Christs calling his Disciples little children and the Apostles so calling Christians shews love and tendernes, but not that infants are visible Church-members, no more then Christs calling the same his Lambs and sheep, John 21. 15, 16, &c. shews that sheep and Lambs are visible Churchmembers. Thus much for answer of that chapter of M. B.