Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 19
SECT. XIX.
Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. part. 1. cap. 5. and the arguings of Dr. Homes, Mr. Bailee, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Sidenham, from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered.
HAving answered Mr. B. Mr. Bl. my two eager Antagonists I shall add animadversions on Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just Vindic. part. 1. ch. 4. sect. 1. 1. He says without proof that they that brought the infants mentioned Luke 18. 15. were pious minded parents. 2. He denies [of such is the kingdom of God] to be meant of the Kingdom of glory, the contrary whereof is proved in the next section before against Mr. Blake. 3. He supposeth, that these words [suffer little children to come to me] being granted to contain a rule of suffering little ones of that sort such as those are to come to him and the words [of such is the Kingdom of God] being expounded of the invisible Church it must be conceived that Christ must direct them to suffer members of the invisible Church to come to him, and then that they may be known. But this is his mistake; they that expound thus the words [suffer these little children and other little children in age if any hereafter be brought to my person to be touched, to come to me, and forbid them not as ye have don these. For however they are persons that are not fit to be my hearers; yet of these now brought and of some other infants which may be brought, and men of years like them in quality is the Kingdom of God, the invisible Church or the Kingdom of glory belongs to them] may avouch this exposition without supposing their election must come under the cognizance of men, nor need they say that onelyonly such who were elected, were, by this rule so exp…unded to be permitted, to come to Christ. 4. That Christ spake of those infants not as an extraordinary inspired Prophet is said without proof; not is it likely, sit… such blessings were never given but by extraordinary inspiration, and Christ appoints not the admitting of little children to any, no not to his Apostles, but himself. 5. That he delivered an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards is said without proof; nor is it likely, sith we reade no more of that practise by any of the Apostles, nor any rule concerning it after this one act of Christ
Sect. 2. H… denies that [of such is the Kingdom of Heaven might be spoken in reference to the future, that is that they were elect ones, and should in time be of Gods Kingdom, that is believers, or that they were such as God would bless. For Christs words are not, of such may, will or shall be the Kingdom of God, nor that they were of his Kingdom, because such as he would bless: but rather that they should not be hindered from being blessed of him, because of such is the Kingdom of God.
To which I answer: that by [the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. 14. and the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14▪ 15▪ Luke 18▪ 16, 17.] must needs be meant the Kingdom of glory is proved before, & then the sense can be no other than of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, that is the Kingdom of glory belongs to such, as Mat. 5. 3, 10. and as foreign, doth of▪ signifie as Mark 9. 14, &c. And then it must needs be an enallage of tense, as Mat. 18▪ 1. as Pisc. sch. on Mat. 18. 1. est pro futurus est enallage temporis, or as Pisc. sch. on Matth. 5. 3. ipsis destinatum est & dabitur, and this is all one as to say they are elect, which is Piscators term in his observation on Matth. 19. 14. as I shewed above in answer to Mr. Blake, and thus [of such is the kingdom of God] refers to the present estate as elect, to their future as possessours of glory hereafter. And so to Mr. Cobbets objection I answer, Matth. 5. 10. it is not said, theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven, but [is] and yet it must be understood of present title and future possession, so here. And for his exception at my words, that the reason may be given why these infants did belong to Gods Kingdom, because they were such as Christ would bless, is not avoided by saying, they were blessed, because of Gods Kingdom. For both ways the reason is good, they should not be hindered from blessing, because theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven the end of blessing, or they should not be hindered from blessing because he intended to bless them, and therefore theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven. Either way that I intended to prove Examen pag. 147. is evinced, that the reason why theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven is not from their parents faith (which should have been if it were meant, as Paedobaptists would, of interest in the visible Church) but Gods election or Christs blessing.
I have often said, that if Christs minde had been that infants should be baptized, he would have commanded these little ones to have been baptized for an Example. To this Mr. Cobbet answers, that according to our principles they were elect, heirs of the kingdom of glory: now why should not or were not these infants at least baptized?
Answ. Because though elect, yet were not believers or Disciples by profession.
But You would allow, saith he, such to be baptized if of grown years.
Answ. No, untill they were believers or Disciples, not barely because elect and heirs of glory.
But You say, saith he, that if by extraordinary revelation you knew an infant to be sanctified, you would baptize it, because the extraordinary revelation would authorize it, and the words of Peter, Acts 10. 47. and the institution, Matth. 28. 19. And then it would follow, 1. That persons may be Disciples without being outwardly taught. 2. It is agreeable to the rule that persons without personal profession of faith should be baptized. Albeit extraordinary things done besides rule cross not ordinary rule; yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done, which is in it self contrary to rule. 3. It was the minde of Christ they should be baptized, as that they should be instructed, though it be not expressed.
Answ. 1. It is true I grant in my Examen, p. 142, 158, 160. upon the grounds mentioned, that an infant regenerated, united to Christ, sanctified by the Spirit upon extraordinary revelation of this might be baptized; and the like is said by Mr. Blackwood Apostolical Bapt. p. 51. And for those that have the thing signified let them make it appear to any Church of Christ, and they cannot deny their baptism. But yet it follows not that these infants might be baptized which are mentioned Matth. 19. 14. For though their election be mentioned, yet not their regeneration and sanctification. Now Praedestinatio nil ponit in praedestinato, and therefore it makes not Disciples or believers at present, but assures it as future: but we are to baptize actual Disciples and believers, not future.
But However, saith he, they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught.
Answ. Who denies it? yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons.
But then, saith he, a person may be baptized without personal profession.
Answ. It is granted, when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise: nor is this contrary to the Rule, sith that is, to baptise known Disciples, who are ordinarily known by their personal profession, though in this case Gods extraordinary act supplies that want. Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right, that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done, which is in it self contrary to rule. For Abrahams killing his son was in it self contrary to rule, yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done. And for the third, though it might be conceived Christs minde, that the children should be instructed, though it be not mentioned, Luke 18. 16, 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law: yet baptising infants being a meer positive rite, that hath no reason or warrant but institution, is not to be conceived Christs minde, without some declaration, which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity, nor at any time else expressed.
There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable, as that he makes the infants paterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally, as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received; whereas, …. the words Matth. 18. 3…4. do plainly make them paterns onelyonly of humility, and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated. 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false, [whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign, as laying on hands, &c. shall not enter therein.] For then that Popish Doctrine, or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained, that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And in like manner it is gratis dictum, without proof sayd [of such like infants, like them in covenant, and Church interest in God is his kingdom,] there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase, and the plain meaning is before expressed.
That which Mr. Cobbet sayth in answer to the reason of Piscator, Why they were not infants because Christ called them; I conceive is not an answer. For what he sayth, that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents, and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham, Heb. 7. is not right. For, 1. that which is sayd of Levi is to be understood of Levi, not of Abraham; for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose, to say, Abraham payd Tyths in Abraham. 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children, yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents, which was spoken to the children. Other things I let pass, which oppose not my dispute but others: and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections, and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter, I refer to another place. This is sufficient in answer to what he sayth in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16, 17.
Dr. Homes in his Animad. on my Exercit. pag. 57, 58. argues thus, To whom indefinitely as such, Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs, to them as such the seal of converance, and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs. For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine. But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children, more, whiles little children; so the Text here expresly. To them belong, or (which is all one) of such is the kingdom of Heaven, and he took them in his arms and blessed them. Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven, and the blessing of Heaven, which in the New Testament, according to the time Christ spake, is baptism.
Answ. Neither is it true, That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven, and the blessing for it, that I finde in Scripture, but the Spirit, Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true, That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such, that is as little children. For then it should belong to all little children, nor to them as children of believing parents, for it should belong to all children of believing parents, but as they are elect. And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called, and believe, not before; as a conveyance may be made to a childe, yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it, and is fit to make use of it. So that the major may be denied if [the belonging of the seal] be meant in respect of present use or possession. And the minor is to be denied, if [as such] be meant [as little children, or children of believers] and the inference on the conclusion is denied, the seal belongs to them, Ergo, baptism. Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently. Nor hath Mr. Geree in his V…ndiciae Vindiciarum ch. 10. brought any thing worth rejoyning in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101, 102. It is false which he saith, in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgment of certainty but charity, nor is a judgment of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism, For if so, then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptize him. Mr. Baille…'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. [since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing, and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants; that therefore baptism a seal of that same kinde, when once the Lord had solemnely at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them] is but dictates. 1. He says, baptism is a seal of the same kinde with Christs laying on hands, which he saith without proof, nor is it true. For. 1. Christs laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet, but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples, John 4. 1, 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptized, Acts 2. 38. not onelyonly the baptizers, but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kinde with laying on of hands, then laying on hands is a seal, and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism, which is counted a point of Popery. 2. To shift off the objection, that Christ appointed not those infants to be baptized, he allegeth that Christ did after solemnly appoint it at his ascension, and since then it ought to be done: which intimates that infants were not to be baptized before, but after the ascension. But, 1. The appointment and practise of baptism was before, if not as solemn, and the same use and order of it, and therefore this reason is of no force why others should be baptized after, more than these before the ascension. 2. It will follow that Jews infants were not to be baptized till after the ascension of Christ, which overthrows his and other Paedobaptists argument about the seal and Covenant, which if of any validity, prove infant baptism as well before the ascension as after. 3. It is false, that Christ at his ascension appointed infant baptism any more than before, the commission of Christ and the Apostles practise shew the contrary. Therefore I deny his argment in the words set down as being without proof or shew of it. Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants advocate ch. 18 hath these words St. John addeth ch. 21. 21. And there are also many other things which Jesus did which are not written, amongst which for ought appears to the contrary, the baptizing of these infants might be one of them; wherein he runs to the Popish plea for their unwritten traditions, and forgets that besides what I have alleged before to shew those infants were not baptized, there appears something to the contrary out of John 4. 1, 2. where it is said, that Jesus baptized not, but his Disciples, and therefore the baptizing of those Infants could not be one of the things which Jesus did though not written John 21. 21. His argument, they were capable of a blessing, therefore of baptism; hath been often denied and answered before. There came to my hands also the Exercitation of Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham, in which ch. 10. he terms Antipaedobaptism denying infants with scorn a little water, and after, this Text Matth. 19. 13, 14. if there were no more, will fly in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of infants, and their baptism. To which I say, it shews too much youthfull rashness u…fi… for a Teacher of a Church either to call Antipaedobaptists contemners of infants, and their baptism, and their denying infants baptism (which they do for ought he knows out of tender conscience of not profaning Christs ordinance) an act, of scorn, and to speak of the Texts flying in their consciences, who know that he had more reason to expect the flying of this Text in his conscience, who in this (as he doth in the rest of his pamphlet) makes the objection against his urging it for infant baptism so as that he might put it off with a slight answer, For whereas Antipaedobaptists object, if Christ hinted their right to baptism, why did he neither baptze them, nor appoint them to be baptized by his Apostles? Mr. Sidenham leaves out the later part of the objection, and answers. 1. He baptizeth none. 2. He did that which was an ordinance usually, in those primitive times, administred after baptism and equal to it in dignity, and so we may argue from this to baptism either inclusively or à majori from the greater, he did such acts to them as are equivalent if not supereminent. But doth Mr. Sidenham indeed think such petty arguings, which he knows not how to form in a Logick way, but in pathetick Rhetorick, likely to …errify our consciences so much, when he himself dares not positively assert, that the laying on of Christs hands did include and presuppose baptism, yea he acknowledgeth it to have been extraordinary; and for his way of proving à majori, he either is ignorant in Logick or else might understand, that an argument à majori is not thus; there is conferred on such a one a greater thing, therefore the less; Christs blessing therefore right to baptism; For then the argument were good, Christ blessed the infants which is the greater, therefore he gave them the Lords supper, or made them Apostles, or gave them the gift of tongues, which are the less. But an argument à majori is à magis probabili, and so it is not more probable that Christ would have them baptized, than that he would bless them, sith they were not meet subjects of the one as of the other. There is nothing else in that chapter but what hath answer before, this is enough to abate the insolency of this Scribler.