Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 18
SECT. XVIII.
The 41. Chapter of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foed. about Christs speech of little children, Matth. 19. 14. is answered, and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated.
MR. Blake since the publishing of my Postscript to my Apology in reply to his Answer to my letter in his Book intituled Vindic. foed. c. 41, 43. sect. 1. hath published somewhat that is to be further examined. He saith, They looked upon Christ (as it seems) as a great Prophet highly in favour with God, and such were wont to bless in the name of God, and their blessing was highly prized, and hands were used to be imposed on persons in blessing, Gen. 48. 14. which I allow. He sets down six positions, the first of which having confirmed, he speaks thus of me. Mr. T. brought his reasons against this, to have nipt all in the bud, but those he hath quit, and is brought to confess that he contradicted himself in them, and hath not a word to excuse his false quotation out of Mark, concerning scandalizing, onelyonly excusing himself that he delivered himself doubtfully in them. Apol. 149.
Answ. It is true I brought in my Examen p. 146. Piscators reasons in his Observ. 11. on Matth. 19. 14. to prove the little children Matth. 19. 13. 14. not to have been infants, but boyes who were capable of instruction, which it is true I say in my Apol p. 149. I d…d not stick to, nor need I sith at first I said Examen pag. 145. onelyonly, It is doubtfull whether these were infants or no. Nor is it truely said by Mr. Bl. that I excused my self, as if I had been in a fault. For it is true which I alleged, not onelyonly Piscator conceiving they were not infants, but Estius also Annot. ad Marc. 10. 13. saying it is not certain that they were infants which could neither speak nor g…. Which very doubtfulness doth weaken the argument thence for infant baptism, yet I had no reason to stick to that, there being other answers sufficient besides. Not is it true which he saith, that I am brought to confess I contradicted my self in the reasons brought, and that they were my reasons, for I expresly said they were Piscators reasons, and therefore though Piscator should contradict my exposition of Matth. 18. 5. in those reasons I need not own it, much less do I confess that I contradict my self in them, as Mr. Blake falsely chargeth me as one that cares not what he prints so he may fully me with a black coal. Nor was any false quotation out of Mark used by me, I onelyonly brought Piscators words & de quali non scandalizando ibidem monet, which if he misapplied to infants, and thereby crossed my interpretation of Matth. 18. 5, 6. he opposed himself, though I think neither Piscator nor my self, were guilty of any self-contradiction, but Mr. Bl. of mistake and calumny. Mr. Bl. saith he knows not that any in print hath maintained it that little children brought to Christ were diseased so as to have need of cure. But there is now a Book in folio written by Mr. Samuel. Fisher intituled Baby baptism meer babism, in which p. 134: are these words, that he should touch them, and put his hands on them and pray, no question 'twas in order to healing, for 'twas at a time when he healed many others, if you compare this passage as 'tis in Matth. 19. with the first and second verses of the chapter: yea v. 15. 'tis plainly expressed what he did, i. e. he laid his hands upon them and departed thence; besides Luke says, they brought little children to him also that he should touch them: which [also] shews that others were brought too, as sick folks commonly were, because virtue went out of him, so that as many as touched him were made perfectly whole. Nor do I think Mr. Blakes reasons sufficient to countervail the other: For though the Disciples well knew that it was usual with Christ to cure those that laboured under infirmities of all ages, yet they sometimes shewed their unwillingness to have persons trouble Christ about diseased persons as Matth. 15. 23. Luke 10. 39. and whereas Mr. Bl. saith, the Evangelist would never have concealed this reason and mentioned another, if he mean it of the reason why the Disciples rebuked the bringers of the little children, the truth is the Evangelists mention no reason at all of the Disciples rebuke, if he mean it of the reason why Christ would have them brought, such reason stands well with this, that the children were diseased, brought to Christ to be cured, and cured by Christ.
I had said, there is no certainty onelyonly conjecture that they were the children of believers, Mr. Bl. sets down his third position thus, These were infants of such parents that were in Covenant with God, which he proves Matth. 19. 1. & 15. 24, 26. Rom. 15. 8. This farther appears by that which they requested for these infants: This Mr. T. seems to yeild; they came (saith he) to Christ upon the conceit that he was a Prophet, and so they might bring children to him to be blessed; And farther says, if this reason prove any thing, it is that the childrens parents were Jews, Apol. pag. 150. which is all that we contend for; the Jews as yet were in Covenant.
Answ. 1. The reasons of Mr. Bl. some of them prove rather the bringers to be Jews than the parents. 2. The proving the parents to be Jews (if any do prove it) is not a proof that they were believers, for there were a great part, if not the greatest part by much of the Jews unbelievers, John 12. 37, 38. And what he sayes, The Jews as yet were in Covenant, if he mean it of all the Jews, and of the covenant of grace in Christ it is palpably false, contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9. 7, 8. where it is expresly resolved that all the natural children of Abraham and Israel were not at any time children of the promise: If he mean it of any other covenant, or promise of God, or of some of the Jews, it would nothing avail him for his purpose, though his Proposition were granted him.
His fourth Proposition is thus exprest, These infants themselves were in covenant, and stood in relation to Christ, bearing his name, and being of his people; and were not as Heathens in their present state without Christ, aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise. This is evident by their free admission by Christ, and the reason by him given. When this was prest upon Mr. T. in solemn disputation, he took time to consider, and after more than two years in his Examen, we have an answer which shame will not suffer him to own. But in his Apology doth disclaim, yet not convinced by Mr. M. my self, or any other: it is enough with me, if the truth is confest; if the truth may have the honor, I am satisfied.
Answ. Were I nor sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Bls. charges without cause, I should be jealous of my self that there is some thing done by me which might occasion this imputation. What was prest on me in the disputation in London, Anno 1643. and what time or for what reason I took time to answer after 10. years elapsed, I cannot trust in my memory to inform me. What answer I gave in my Examen which in my Apology I disclaim, and shame will not now suffer me to own, concerning this proposition of Mr. Bl. and its proof, it is such a riddle to me that I cannot yet tell how to understand it, except I have Mr. Bls. heifer to plough with. Sure I am, this kinde of crimination which Mr. Bl. useth, is very unsuitable to a clear and solid disputant thus by dark flirts, and quips to abuse me; But I think it best to slight his charge, presuming intelligent men will be little moved with it. As for his position, the terms being ambiguous, and especially the term [in covenant] being used (as I often complain) in such variety of senses or rather sometimes non-sense by Paedobaptists, that it seems to be used by them to elude rather than to inform, it may be either granted or denied as the terms are explained, and if this did occasion me to take time to answer it I did therein prudently, and if after two or ten years my answers be various they are so upon due considerations; For present I grant, those infants (if they were infants) mentioned Matth. 19. 14. were in the covenant of saving grace, stood in relation to Christ as chosen in him, and in that respect bare his name as his bre…heren, were of his invisible people, not as heathens in their present state without Christ being given to him, nor aliens from the Common-wealth of the Israel of God the invisible Church of the elect, nor strangers from the covenant of promise, that is, the covenant of promise commensurate with election of grace, and this I grant to be evident of those particular persons if not by their free admission to Christ, yet by the reason by him given, it being supposed that [foreign, of such] is meant of them as well as of those that were like them in humility. But if the position be understood of being in covenant either by their own act of cove…anting, or that which is called by Paedobaptists in their non-sense or proper gibberish the outward covenant, or that it be meant that they stood in relation to Christ as visible members of the Christian church in their present state while they were infants, I deny it to be true, or that it is evident by their free admission by Christ, and the reason by him given.
Mr. Bls. fifth position is, They were admitted upon a common right, equally belonging to all infants of covenanting parents, and not by virtue of any extraordinary privilege, peculiar to them, and not common to other. This is plain, saith he, 1. By the general admission which he gives to infants on this occasion; Suffer little children come to me, and (as Mr. T. more than once observes) Extraordinarium non facit regulam communem, here is a general Rule, all have admission, and therefore there is nothing extraordinary. 2. It was such a right that the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood, as plainly appears by Christs sore displeasure conceived against them, for forbidding their admission to him, and that must be a known right, and not secret.
Answ. 1. There is not a word in the Text to prove that they were admitted upon any right to their admission as due to them, and which might be claimed for them, but they were admitted out of grace. 2. There is nothing in the Text to prove they were the children of covenanting parents, or that they were admitted out of any respect at all to their parents state, whatever it were. As for Mr. Bls. reasons. To the 1. I say, The words are a Command onelyonly for those little children, foreign, Suffer the little children, to wit them brought to come to me; nor doth it appear by any after instance of Christ or his Apostles that this was understood as a general rule, that all should have admission. 2. Were it granted that this rule of Christ did reach to others besides those then brought, yet there is nothing in the Text to prove this rule of admission to be onelyonly of infants of covenanting parents or to these or any other by reason of right from their covenanting parents. Yea rather if any right be intimated it is the personal right of the infants, for of such is the Kingdom of God. 2. It is true, the Disciples of Christ ought to have understood they were to be admitted, But that this was the reason why they ought to know they were to be admitted because of their known right is imagined but not proved. And how or for what reasons they might know they were to be admitted is shewed above in answer to Mr. B.
Mr. Bl. adds, Mr. T. indeed says, They were not admitted out of any known right common to others, but a perculiar privilege as being elected, for which he quotes Piscator; when as he hath heard (and replies nothing) that Piscator syllogistically concludes the contrary.
Answ. I said not, they were admitted out of a peculiar privilege as being elected, nor for this did I quote Piscator, and therefore in my animadversions in my postscript I made no reply to Mr. Bl. in this thing. My words in my Examen pag. 146, 147. were these. 4. Let it be granted they were the infants of believers and that it is said, of these is the Kingdom of God, it may be as Piscator observes referred not to their present estate, as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God that is believers and justified; but that they were elect persons, and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God: in which I do not at all assign the reason why the little children were to be admitted to come to Christ, nor do I quote Piscator for it, and therefore Mr. Bl. mis…ecites my words, but shew how it might be true that of those infants was the Kingdom of God, yet in their present estate they neither believers nor justified. Against which Piscator is so far from concluding syllogistically (as Mr. Bl. says) that disputing against the Lutherans affirming infants to be believers because of Christs words, Matth. 19. 14. in his Observe 11. out of that v. he sayth thus, Deinde etiamsi ponatur, sermonem hic de infantibus esse: tamen non potest hinc certò concludi illos praeditos esse …ide. Et…nim infantium potest esse regnum coe…orum, etiamsi non credant, dummodo sint electi: which are the effect of my words. And for the rest that follows in Mr. Bl. about Christs design, and the Disciples duty to know it, and their sin in being ignorant of it: there is answer before in the answer to Mr. B. Nor is there a word in my writing that tends to this, that either they knew or were bound to know the election of those infants, or that Christ was angry with them for not knowing it: I have often said, it was either because they heeded not some particular intimation of his minde concerning those infants, or some general truth concerning Christs Office, and his readiness to do good to all sorts of persons, as there was opportunity offered, from which he ought not to be hindered by them. I do not confess, as Mr. Bl. sayth of me, that elect infants might be baptized, were they known: but that elect infants being actual believers, if they were known might be baptized, and therefore I need not fear Christs displeasure for not admitting elect infants to baptism, no not though they were known to be elect, except they were known to be believers, much less for not admitting to baptism those that are neither known to be elect nor believers: But Mr. Bl. hath just cause to fear the displeasure of Christ for admitting to baptism those that are neither known to be elect, nor believers, but infants of Parents who are manifestly children of the Devil, covenant-breakers, &c. according to his Doctrine in opposition to Mr. Firmin Vindic. Foed. cap. 47. which is a higher degree of profanation of the Ordinance of Baptism, than many Paedobaptists fall into.
Mr. Bls. sixth Position is, They are here admitted by our Saviour Christ to a Church-privilege. This appears Numb. 6. 22, 23, &c. to the end of the Chapter. The Israel of God are under the blessing, little ones are ordered to be received to this blessing, little ones therefore are of his Israel, Deut. 32. 9. These are the blessed of the Lord upon this account, Jer. 31. 23. children are within this number, they are the inheritage of the Lord, Psal. 127. 3. and consequently admitted by our Saviour Christ to this privilege of a blessing.
Answ. 1. Mr. Bls. Position is ambiguous, 1. It is uncertain whether he mean it of Christs laying on hands, or his prayer also, and blessing with it, which is the Church-privilege. 2. Whether he make it a privilege of the visible or invisible Church. 3▪ Whether he will have these to be a constant Church-privilege. 4. To whom he will have it a Church-privilege. 5. By whom it is to be done since Christs ascension, whether by Apostles onelyonly, or Bishops, or Presbyters. All the proof he brings for blessing, as a Church-privilege, is the prayer of Aaron and his sons, for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, which how it proves Christs laying on of hands, and praying or blessing of a few little children, (when Christ was neither Aaron nor any of his s…s) to be a Church-privilege, such as was Aaron and his sons blessing, which belonged to the Levitical Priesthood, I see no…. Mr. Bls. arguing is like as if his wits went a wool-gathering. This, saith he, appears Numb. 6. 22, 23, &c. What is that which he saith appears? It should be his sixth Position, They are here admitted by our Saviour Christ to a Church-privilege: but his conclusion is, Little ones therefore are of his Israel; and this is proved by a syllogism that is either faulty in that there are four terms, or else it is in the second figure of all Affirmatives. If it be said that Mr. Bl. infers from that and the rest his Position, neither is that true: for his conclusion is this, and consequently admitted by our Saviour Christ to this privilege of a blessing; which though not denied by me, yet is neither his sixth Position, nor any thing in the Texts he brings proves it, which are all impertinently alleged by him, and the last especially, which he seems to understand, as if they were said to be the heritage of the Lord, as if they were the Lords peculiar possession, whereas the meaning is Psalm 127. 3. that children are such a blessing to parents, that they are an heritage given by the Lord, as Ainsworth rightly expounds it; and so an house-privilege rather than a Church-privilege is there meant, as the words following shew.
Mr. Bl. had said, pag. 91. of his answer to my Letter, there is no direct precedent for baptism in particular, but for Churchprivileges of which infants are capable, on which I inferred, if [but] be adversative, (which must be granted if Mr. Bl. speaks sense) then Mr. Bl. grants that infants are capable of Churchprivileges, not of baptism. To this Mr. Bl. replies, 1. that I make a great triumph of his speech. 2. That I leave out that which would fully explain his meaning. 3. That his meaning is, this act of Christ is no direct precept for baptism, but of Church-priledges in general. 4. If I can make it good that baptism is no Church-privilege I have wrested this Argument out of his hand, and that this Text as to the Argument fals, otherwise it is of force and an undeniable consequence.
Answ. 1. I said truly, that grant which Mr. Bls. words (if he understand himself) implies, overthrows all his dispute, and is a triumph (if it be to be so called) on a victory. 2. I left out nothing which being put in would have hindered the inference I make: but Mr. Bl. as if he were ashamed of his own words, leaves out in his explication the words [of which infants are capable] from whence I made my inference. 3. His own explication makes the matter worse. For, 1. if this act of Christ be a direct precept of Church-privileges in general, then it is of baptism in particular, being a Church-privilege, that which is said of the Genus being true (as Logicians say) of the species, Quicquid praedicatur de genere praedicatur de specie. Whence it follows Mr. Bl. speaks in consistencies. 2. It follows also, that if it be a direct precept for to admit infants to Church-privileges in general, then it is to admit them to the Lords Supper, to Ordination, for these are Church-privileges. If he mean no more than this, that they are to be admitted to prayer for them, and that is the Church-privilege he means, I should grant it, and accordingly when desired I do both publish the names, days of infants birth, and pray for them. 4. What he would gather from hence, by necessary consequence I wrest out of his hands, I think easily, without gratifying Socinians, Antibaptists, (who if they triumph over Antipaedobaptists, and beat them down with their own weapons in the parts w…re Mr. Bl. lives, the more shame for them, who betray by their unskilfulness so good a cause) with this, that baptism is no Churchprivilege. His Arguments are thus formed, cap. 43. sect. 1. They which are admitted to Church-privileges have right to baptism, the leading▪ privilege; but infants are admitted to Church-privileges, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16. Infants therefore have right to baptism.
To which I answer, if he mean by [Church-privileges] any other than prayer, and the laying of hands on them by Christ; I deny the minor; if he meant it of them I deny the major. And whereas he makes baptism the leading Church-privilege, I grant it is so in order to the Lords Supper, yet to be among the catechized, commended to God in prayer, may be antecedent Church-privileges to baptism.
His other Argument is this, The children of the Kingdom, that with others make up the Kingdom of God, have right to baptism; but infants are the children of the Kingdom that with others make up the Kingdom of God, Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16. Infants therefore have right to baptism.
To which I answer. The phrase [Children of the Kingdom] I finde diversly used, Matth. 8 12. it is appropriated to the Jews, and it is spoken of them which shall be cast out into utter darkness. But Matth. 13. 38. it is meant of the elect, who shall be saved. In the former sense, the major is manifestly false, and the minor can be onelyonly true of Jews infants: in the later sense the major Proposition is true of children of the Kingdom who are visibly such by their profession of faith in Christ; and the minor is false; if it be meant of such as are invisibly children of the Kingdom, the major is denied, and the minor is granted.
Mr. Bl. adds somewhat more about the meaning of the words of Christ, [of such is the Kingdom of Heaven] And first he saith, The particle [such] cannot here have reference to their qualification, that those that were qualified as these (in humility and meekness) had their interest; so are Sheep and Doves as well as infants, not proud nor revengefull.
Answ. This reason is not of force to prove that [such] cannot here have reference to the qualification of meekness and humility. For being so expounded [such] notes others than the infants, to wit, men that are humble and meek positively, as infants are negatively, and this cannot be sayd of Doves or sheep, yet infants may be included as Beza doth Annot: in Matth. 19. 14. talium foreign, id est, horum & similium, ut supra. 18. which is plainly proved by our Lord Christs own words Mark 10. 15. where [of such v. 14.] is [whosoever receiveth the Kingdom of God as a little childe v. 15.] and so it is meant Matth. 18. 5. as I have proved above. Nor is Mr. Bls. reasoning of force, That which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants, and a just ground of those that brought them, is that which Christ understands in this reproof of the Disciples and admission of their infants▪ But it was their want of growth, their littleness, which the Disciples took to be a just impedinent, and which occasioned their reproof, Ergo. For the conclusion may be granted, yet this proves not that by [of such] is meant in respect of quantity onelyonly, not of quality, but onelyonly that in the words before [suffer little children to come to me] quantity is meant not quality, for in those words onelyonly is the reproof of the Disciples, and Christs admission of infants. The other are a reason of his command, which is good if by [such] be meant likeness in quality as well as agreement in quantity. And for Mr. Bls. paraphrase, it is but his own conceit, that the little children had no need of cure, or that the Disciples rebuke was after his model. But enough of this before.
Mr. Bl. excepts against me for saying, the Kingdom of Heaven is meant of the Kingdom of glory, and that on this hinge the answer to the whole argument turns. He saith, I had six exceptions against the orthodox interpretation of this scripture in my Examen, being hunted out of all the rest I think to finde s…m sh…lter there. But this is his figment, for though I of mine own accord expressed some onelyonly as doubtfull, and let pass others for more ample conviction of the invalidity of the vain arguing, called falsely Orthodox interpretation of this Text by paed baptists, yet I did not so much as relinquish one of the exceptions, much less have been hunted from them, as Mr. Bl. after his pedant que fashion talks. But in opposition to me he first saith, That all hangs not on this, appears, in that our Saviour had said enough in his order for admission of these infants on which we can build our conclusion. And then brings his argument, which being answered before there is no need of any more reply to this. Yet I add, that of the argument drawn by Mr. Bl. pag. 91. of his answer to my letter none that are int…ressed in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom may be denied an admission to it by baptism, but infants have their interests in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom, and therefore may not be denied admission by baptism; the hinge did turn on this point, that by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the visible Church, into which he would have infants admitted by baptism; and my speech is true of that Argument.
Mr. Blake adds, Secondly, for his Reasons there is not force in them, 1. Saith he, The kingdom of God must be understood Mark 10. 14. as it is v. 15. and Luke 18. 16. as v. 17. and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both those; This I prove, because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate, Apol. pag. 150. This Argument howsoever it carries more colour than usually is fou…d in Mr. T. his Reason, yet it is not conclusive. It may be taken more largely in Christs argumentation, and in a more restrained sense in his words of instruction and application, as in a place much parallel I shall shew, 1 Cor. 6 1, 2. There we have the Apostles reproof, v. 1. and his Reason, v. 2▪ as in the Evangelists we have Christs assertion confirming his reproof, v. 14 and his application, v. 15. Now [Saint] in the Apostles reproof is taken more largely than it is taken in his Reason. A visible Saint is meant in the first place, a real and glorified Saint in the second; visible Saints may judg in small matters, for real Saints in glory shall judg the world, shall judg Angels; and so it may be here, infants have their present title to the visible Kingdom; and men qualified as infants, shall onelyonly enter the Kingdom of Glory.
Answ. I see Mr. Bl. so pertinacious in what he hath said in this argument, that he is cedere nescius, he knows not how to yeild to any thing against his dictates, though it be never so plain. He denies not Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. must be understood of the Kingdom of glory for the reason given by me in my Postscript The proposition being false, being understood of the visible Church; many proud persons entering therein, as Simon Magus, Diotrephes, &c. But denies it to be conclusive, and therefore must deny the major. But he answers nothing to the proof of it, because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate. Whence the argument ariseth. The same estate is meant Mark 10. 14. which is mean v. 15. This is proved from the inference of Christ which is, as of little children is the kingdom of God, so whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter into [foreign, it] or the same estate, the relative particle plainly notes it to be the same. But the estate Mark 10. 15. is meant of the Kingdom of glory, which is proved, because otherwise the proposition were false: nor is it denied by Mr. Bl. therefore the argument is most plainly conclusive. Mr. Bls. answer is either upon a wilfull or heedeless mistake of my argument as if it were onelyonly from the identity of the words in both verses, whereas it was taken from the sameness of estate gathered by the force of our Saviours whether application of v. 15. as Mr. Bl. terms it, or inference from what he had said v. 14. and the relative [foreign, it.] I deny not that it is frequent according to the figure in Rhetorick termed antanaclasis to use terms sometimes in the same verse elegantly in a different sense: but it cannot be so here for the reasons given. And yet Mr. Bls. instance 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2. is not right: For 1 Cor. 6▪ 2. the term [Saint] doth not note a glorified Saint. For the sense is this, know ye not these now despised Saints shall hereafter judg the world, and so though it be true that then they shall be glorified, yet the term [Saints] is attributed to them according to their present estate of debasement, in which the very Emphasis is put. Besides if it had been so that in the one v. it noted a visible Saint here, and in the other a glorified Saint hereafter, yet the same persons were meant in both verses: whereas if Mark 10. 14. were meant the visible Church, who are a number of persons, and v. 15. were meant an estate of glory, there would be a greater difference than in 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2. and therefore Mr. Bl. doth not rightly say, the one place is much parallel to the other.
Mr. Bl. goes on. His second reason, that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church, and therefore speaks not of the Church visible, I know not how to make up into a reason; if I understood it, I would either yeild or answer it.
Answ. The reason is thus formed. The same is meant Mark 10. 14. which is meant v. 15. as is before proved. But by [the Kingdom of God] v. 15. is not meant the visible Church, Ergo, neither v. 14. The minor is thus proved. By [the Kingdom of God] is meant that estate into which the Apostles had not but were thereafter to enter into. For the speech is meant of them as well as others, and directed to them, Verily I say to you, and so where the same thing is sayd Matth. 18. 3. it is sayd to and of them, Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens. But the estate the Apostles were to enter into was not the visible Church, for that they had entered into already, but the Kingdom of glory. Therefore by [the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14.] is meant the Kingdom of glory.
Mr. Bl. adds, The third reason, that the speech Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Matth. 18. 3, 4▪ but there it is meant of the Kingdom of glory; Ergo, so here, is answered already. If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18. 3, 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question is unlike Matth. 18. 3▪ 4.
Answ. 1. If Mark 10. 15. be like Matth. 18. 3, 4. then also Mark 10. 14. is in like manner understood the Kingdom of Heaven, as Matth. 18. 3, 4. For it is understood of the same Mark 10. 14, 15. as is proved before. 2. Mr. B. conceived them like by putting them together in the chapter before answered, and the New Annot. and Diodati, whose Testimonies are alleged in my Postscript. pag. 151.
Mr. Bl. adds, Thirdly, were it granted him, that the Kingdom of glory must be understood both in Christs reason and application, yet he is nothing holpen. Infants have right to the Church visible militant, bcause they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant, Acts 2▪ 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved; not necessarily saved, but now (having entered Covenant with God) they were in a capacity, and therefore added as visible Church-members. Infants standing in this capacity ought to have admission likewise.
Answ. It helps me much to answer the arguments drawn from Matth. 19. 14. for infants visible Church-membership, if by the [Kingdom of Heaven] be not meant the visible Church, For then it is not there affirmed, that infants are visible Churchmembers. Nor doth Mr. Bls. reserve regain the loss, to prove it by consequence, For his speech is not true, Infants have right (meaning of admission) to the visible Church, because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant. Nor is it proved Acts 2. 47. where Mr. Bl. perverts the meaning of the term foreign, which is in English [the saved] that is either [the saved from that crooked generation v. 40. by their effectual calling as 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 3. 5.] or by an enallage of tense [such as should be saved] and that certainly or necessarily] as 2 Cor. 2. 15. not as Mr. Bl. they were in a capacity to be saved, (for so were those that were not called) and therefore added as visible Church-members. Nor is Mr. Bls. proposition gathered thence: for neither is there any thing in the words to prove that then all were added to the Church which should be saved, much less which were in a capacity to be saved, or on the contrary that all that were added to the Church should be saved: much less that their right to be added to the Church was from this, that they should be saved; It is said, the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved, it is not said the Apostles added them to the Church because they were to be saved, yea v. 41. it is said, that even of those that were to be saved, they gladly received the word; and then were baptized and added. So that if the Text be rightly looked into there is nothing to be gathered thence of the persons right to be added to the Church, or the Ministers duty to add to the Church by baptism, persons meerly upon this consideration, that they shall be saved, but onelyonly that it is the course of Gods providence to add to his Church such as shall be saved. I yet add that if Mr. Bls. proposition were granted him, they have a right to the Church-visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant, yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect, and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded Matth. 19. 14. Acts 2. 47. it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptized and to be added to the Church, not the natural children of true believers, who are many of them non elect; nor can a Minister gather thence, he ought to baptize any of them till he know they are elect, and shall be saved, and therefore they rashly and profanely baptize from hence them, that they have no knowledg of, that of them is the Kingdom of glory and that they shall be saved.