Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 65
SECT. LXV. Mr. Bs. Argum. from Matth. 23.37. Revel. 11.15. for infants visible Churchmembership Ch. 12, 13. are answered.
I Have answered Mr. Bs. 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th. Chapters of the first part of his Book of Baptism in this Review, Part. 1. Sect. 6, 7, 8, 9. I think it not needful as yet to make reply to the exceptions against my answers, and therefore go on to answer Mr. Bs. 12th. Chapt. which begins thus.
My 7th. Arg. shall be drawn from Matth. 23.37, 38, 39. From whence I argue thus; If Christ were so tender over Jerusalem that he would have gathered them as a Hen gathereth her Chickens, then surely he would not have put them or their infants out of the Church (or repealed the merciful gift and ordinance of their Churchmembership. But Christ was so tender of them, that he would have so gathered Jerusalem, &c. Therefore sure hee would not have unchurched their infants. The antecedent is the words of the Lord Jesus: The reason and strength of the consequence lieth here. 1. It is not some particular Jews that Christ would have gathered to himself (and so into his Church as accomplished with higher priviledges then before:) but it was Jerusalem, whole Jerusalem (which is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish Nation) now if Jerusalem were gathered, then infants must needs be gathered. I know nothing of any moment that can be said against this; but leave it to any tender conscience to judge, whether it be likely that Christ should have unchurched all their infants, when he would have gathered to himself the whole nation, or whole Jerusalem. If that contemptible answer should here bee again returned [that Christ would have gathered them onelyonly into the invisible Church] I have answered it before; they that are visibly or apparently gathered into the invisible Church, are gathered also thereby into the visible: And if all Jerusalem had been gathered, it had been doubtless a visible gathering: O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted truths, as I see in these words of the Lord Jesus, to convince me, that hee would have gathered all Jerusalem into his visible Church, and cons…quently not have unchurched all their infants: I should tremble to think of resisting so plain testimonies of God. If Christs own words will not serve, I know not what will. If any say, that by Jerusalem is meant onelyonly the aged of Jerusalem; I answer: It is vain to call for Scripture if they dare contradict it at pleasure; or so make it speak onelyonly what they list. It is not fully a nation or City without the infants. Besides, Jerusalem had inchurched infants when Christ so spake; therefore how could his words be otherwise understood by them, unless hee had excepted infants. 2. Yet further, Christ doth not in vain use the similitude of a Hen gathering her Chickens; The Hen gathereth the youngest most tenderly: Yea how long will she sit the very Egs? Now who dare expound thi… thus? As a Hen gathereth her young ones under her wings, so I would have gathered the aged of you, but none of your young ones visibly. 3. And doth not their leaving of their house desolate, mean the Temple, and so the unchurching them, till they say, Blessed i… hee that commeth in the Name of the Lord: and …he… Jerusalem (and therefore infants) shall bee inchurched again? So CHRIST JESUS himself hath made me believe that he would have gathered all Jerusalem, but unchurched none of them.
Answ. It is not CHRIST JESUS, but Mr. Bs. own shall…wness or prejudice that makes him believe that here is a…y thing for infants visible Churchmembership. That Jerusalem is usually put for all Judea and the Jewish nation, is more then I finde. But that by Jerusalem and her children are not meant infants, is apparent from the text. 1. They are meant by Jerusalem who killed and stoned them that were sent, but they were not infants, Ergo. 2. Becau…e the way whereby Christ would have gathered Jerusalem was by preaching the Gospel to them, as is manifest 1. in that hee used no other way. 2. This was the way which he often attempted, which is implied in the phrase, how often would I? 3. This is the way they refused, implied in the phrase [and ye would not] that is, yee would not obey my admonitions of repentance nor believe the Gospel; and so Piscator annal▪ loci saepissimè & benignissimè à me admoniti, non tamen obtemporare voluistis. 4. From vers. 34.35. where the way by which hee would have gathered them, seems to bee by sending Prophets, and Wise men, and Scribes or Apostles Luk. 11.49. to them, which were not sent to infants. How oft would I have g…thered? That is (say some) by the external ministery of the Prophets sent unto thee, vers. 34, 35. Trap… on Matth. 23.37. 5. The often attempt of gathering here, is the same with the visitation, or over sight Luke 19.44. as the agreement of the expressions and matter in both places compared e…idently shews, now that was by teaching, Luke 1.78, 79. And thus the New Annot. Of thy visitation] as if he had said in thy visitation, in which God manifested himself in my person offering thee mercy. 6. Thus Protestant Divines often expound it, answering Arminians and others, inferring hence resistability of converting grace by mans free…will; as Diodati in his annot. on Matth. 23.37. expresseth their minde, Wee must of necessity understand this to bee meant of the dispensation of outward means by the word▪ exhortations, commandments, &c. Now it cannot be said that Christ would have this way gathered the infants of Jerusalem, for hee had said he often by his own, and Prophets and Apostles preaching would or attempted to do it. But this he would nor nor attempted to do to infants, Ergo, they are not meant under the term [Jerusalem.] 3. This is proved also from the end of his gathering, which was, that they might bee his Disciples, but hee never would or did gather any infants to him as his Disciples, Ergo. 4. It is proved also thus. Those onelyonly are meant by Jerusalem, whom Christ would have gathered but they would not: But this cannot be said of infants, that they would not, there was no nilling of Conversion in them, Ergo. 5. They are mea…t by Jerusalem who are meant by the City Luk. 19.41. and there they are meant, who v. 42. might have known in that their day the things belonging to their peace, but then they were hid from their eyes. Who knew not the time of their visitation, v. 44. But this is not meant of infants, Ergo.
In answer therefore to Mr. Bs. argument altering the termes [put out, unchurch, which my doctrine doth not assert] into [repeal the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership ▪ or leave out of his visible Church] I deny the consequence of his major, and deny that which he alledgeth for proof of it, that by Jerusalem is mean… all the people of Jerusalem, even the infants. And to his wish, I return a wish▪ O that I could see as clear evidence for many other controverted tru…hs, as I see in these words to convince me that Christ means no… infants by those he would have gathered unto him, and though I would not have Mr. B. of any man to turn Quaker, yet I think he should rather tremble at the allegation of this text so impertinent to his purpose, and not understand by [Jerusalem] Synecdochically the persons of years. Nor would this be any more to contradict the Scripture at pleasure, or to make it speak onelyonly what we list, then for him to understand by [Jerusalem] Synecdochically (as he doth) the Jewish nation, or by [Jerusalem] to understand metonymically the people, even the infants of the City. To make the interpreting of speeches by tropes a contradicting them, or making them speak what they list is such a …oolery, as I should rather have imagined to have come from some woman or Lay-preacher, then from a man of such magnified learning as Mr. B. is, had I not found it printed in his Book. As for what he saith, it is not fully a nation or city without infants, though it were true (as it is not) yet that proves not that infants are meant in every speech of a nation or city, any more then Math. 24.7. infants shall rise against infants, because nation shall rise against nation, or Matt. 21.10. infants were moved saying, who is this? because the whole city was moved, saying, who is this? And hereby it may he seen how easily Christ might be understood without including infants, and so much the more easily, because though infants were in the Jewish Church, yet Christ who spa…e not of gathering into the Jews Church, but to himself (in whose visible Church were no infants) might be the more readily conceived to except infant…, yea if he had meant infants could not be well understood by them. And for his challenge, I answer, I dare thus expound his gathering, of gathering onelyonly the aged into his visible Church, if Mr. B. imagine (as he doth) the similitude of a Hen to be used in vain if infants be not meant, because the Hen gathereth the youngest, by this reason Christ should use the similitude in vain if he would gather any other then infants, sith the hen gathereth not hens and old cocks under her wings, but onelyonly little chickens. Me thinks by leaving their house desolate, Mr. B. should not mean the unchurching them. For then it will follow, that all the Jewish nation were unchurched (for so he will have meant by Jerusalem) which will overthrow many of his conceits about making Jewish and Gentile Churches one body, the same▪ the Church not broken off, &c. and prove afore he is aware the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership. But enough of the silly insipid arguings (if I may use his language) of this Chapter, let's see whether the next have any better.
Ch. 13. My 8th. arg. saith Mr. B. is from Rev. 11.15. If the Kingdoms of this world, either are or shal be the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ; then infants also must be members of his Kingdom: (and consequently the gift and ordinance for their churchmembership is not repealed.) But the antecedent is the words of the text. What can be said against this that is sense or reason? If they say, that by [Kingdoms] is meant [some part of the Kingdoms] excluding all infants: I say such men need not look into the Scripture for their faith: They may make their own Creed on these terms, let Scripture say what it will: I know some places of Scripture may be produced, where the word Kingdom and Jerusalem, &c. is taken for a part: but if wee must take words always improperly, because they are so taken sometime, then wee shall not know how to unde…stand any Scripture, and humane language will become useless; and by this any man may put by any Testimony of Scripture, though it were to prove the most fundamental truth: As the Arrians put off all testimonies for the Godhead of Christ, because Magistrates are called Gods. But the circumstances of this text do evince to us, that Christ speaketh properly of whole Jerusalem and whole Kingdoms, and not improperly of any part onelyonly.
2. If they say, that [by Kingdom of Christ] is not meant the Church of Christ, they then speak against the constant phrase of the Scripture; which cals Christs Kingdom his Church and Conversim: Christ is King and Saviour of the same society. What is Christs Kingdom but his Church? I know the Kingdome of Christ is more large and more special: but here it cannot be meant of his Kingdom in the larger sense, as he is de jure, onelyonly King (in regard of voluntary obedient subjects) nor as hee over ruleth common societies and things: For so the Kingdoms of the world were ever the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Christ, and it could not be said that now they are become so. So that for any thing I can see, this text alone were sufficient to decide the controversie, whether infants must b…e Church-members.
Answ. 1. I think this may bee said with sense and reason, yea and clear evidence out of the text, that by [Kingdoms of the world, Kingdoms of our Lord and his Ch…ist, or as some copies have it, the Kingdom of the world is become] is not meant the men or members of either Kingdoms, and so neither infant, nor adult persons, but the dominion, power, rule it self which the men of the world had usurped, chiefly Antichrist, which was Christs before of right, but not till then become his by actual▪ full, and peaceable possession, his enemies or the chief of them being no… till then subdued, but tyranizing over his subjects. And though I confess the term connotes men over whom Christ should have rule, yet the persons ov…r whom Christ should rule then, were not onelyonly the Church, but also his enemies, whom he should subdue, and keep under, and judge, Revel ▪ 2 26, 27. That by [Kingdome] is meant Rule, is manifest from many places, M…tth. 6.10, 13. John 18.36. Heb. 1.8. so Revel. 17.17, 18. And that this is the meaning here, seems to me to be manifest, 1. from that which is added, and he shall reign for ever and ever; which being the consequent of the Kingdome or Kingdomes of the world becomming our Lords and his Christ, it shews, that the Kingdomes note the rule or dominion whereby he reigns, not the persons over whom he reigns. 2. The same is confirmed from v. 17. where the same thing is expressed in those words, We give thee thanks, O Lord God almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned: And wh…rein that is, is expressed v. 18, in judging all, rewarding his servants, destroying the corrupters of the earth. 3. From ch. 12.10. where again the same or like thing is expressed thus, Now is come salvation and strength or power and the Kingdome of our God, and the power or authority of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down: Where Kingdome and power are put together, to shew, that by the Kingdome is not meant the persons over whom the rule is, but the rule it self. 4. It is so to be understood where it is mentioned as I conceive in the sense meant Revel. …1.15. as namely 1 Cor. 15.24. 2 Tim. 4.1. and other places. 5. Thus Diodati in his Annot. on Revel. 11.15. The Kingdomes] that is to say, Now God reigneth with his son, and that absolutely having subdued all his enemies. 1 Cor. 15.24. that I omit others. 6. This sense is the more confirmed, if it be read as some copies have it, the Kingdome of this world is become. On the other side Mr. Bs. interpretation seems to me either not sense, or not true. For then it should be thus, All the Kingdomes of the world, that is every person in the world, should be Christs Church, that is, a society of persons separated from the world to God, or called out of the world, &c. as he defines the Church, of Baptism, pag. 82. Now can this be good sense to be all the world, the Kingdomes of the world, and to be called or separated from or out of the world? Can all the world be separated from the world! And there is no truth in this interpretation, sith it never was nor shall be, that the kingdomes of the world, that is, every person old and young in all the kingdomes of the world, shall become Christs Church. For then Christ should have no enemies to remove out of his Kingdome, contrary to the Parable, Matth. 13.30. expounded v. 38.39, 40, 41, 42. Now if this be the sense, then it makes nothing for infants visible Churchmembership, nor by [kingdomes] is all the members of a kingdome meant, and so infants, but both the consequence of Mr. Bs. major is justly denied, and the inference from the consequent of it. For if it be meant of Christs rule (as the texts shew) though it connote the persons over whom the rule is, yet they are not thereby proved Churchmembers; for in the sense there meant, the rule or reign is over enemies as well as subjects: Yea, if the reign were over subjects, and infants comprehended, yet sith the reign over them is onelyonly invisible, this cannot prove infants visible Churchmembers.
Nor are Mr. Bs. reasons of any force to prove that Revel. 11.15. by the kingdome of Christ must be meant the Church. For it is not true, that the constant phrase of Scripture calls Christs Kingdome his Church and Conversim. For though I deny not that …he Church is termed the kingdome of Christ, yet I deny this is the constant phrase of Scripture to call the kingdome of Christ the Church, much less Conversim. …he places alledged before, with many more, do evince the contrary; yea, there appear to me but few places wherein the Church is termed the kingdome of Christ. I am not yet fully resolved, that it is any where so meant, except in that Matth. 13.41. though I deny not the fitness of the expression.
Nor doth his reason hold, that here it cannot be meant of Christs Kingdome in the largest sense, as he over-ruleth common soci…ties and things; For though it be true, that in some sort so the Kingdomes of the world were ever his, that is, he did always so order them, that they passively did his will; yet it is certain, that in the reign of Antichrist the kingdomes of the world, that is, the rule which was exercised was not actively for God or Christ, but as it is expresly said, Revel 13.4. …hey worshipped the Dragon who gave power to the beast, blasphemed God, made war with the saints, overcame them; the beast had power over all kindreds and tongues and nations, so that all that dwelt on the earth should worship him, whose names were not written in the Lambs book of life: and so they gave their Kingdome to the beast, Revel. 17.12, 13, 14, 17. though they did Gods will But after the Lamb overcame them, v. 14. and the Kingdomes of the world were his, when the Kings did bate the whore, and make her des…lite, &c. So that this may well be expounded thus, the Kingdomes of the world, that is, the rule which the Kings of the world have exercised for the Whore shall be so changed, that whether out of revenge of the mischiefs the Whore hath done them, or out of love to Christ, they shall hate her, and execute Christs doom upon her, which was not always done. And it seems a piece of inconstancy in Mr. B. who would not have the kingdomes of the world taken for a part in the forepart of this chapter, and yet denies it to be taken in the largest sense in the later part. And how the infant Churchmembership of Christians can be gathered from the terme, Kingdomes of the world becomming Christs, more then any others, I see not. But I proceed.
2. Suppose it were granted, that by the Kingdomes of Christ were meant men, and the Church of Christ, Revel. 11.15. yet sure it is far more likely that by the Kingdome of Christ should be meant the invisible, then the visible Church. For the invisible Church either solely or chiefly is called the kingdome of Christ, and he is stiled the King of Saints, Rev. 15.3. and Mr. B. saith here, Christ is King and Saviour of the same society. But in this sense I should grant the conclusion, that infants must be members of Christs Kingdome. And sure…y the visible Church-members who are not true believers, have not Christ to rule over them, but are enemies to Christ, and Satans subjects, and therefore not truly but putatively onelyonly in Christs kingdome, nor they any part of it. They are not children of the kingdome, Matth. 13.38.
3. But were it granted that Revel. 11.15. is meant the visible Church, yet that therefore infants must bee a part of it, because they are a part of a Kingdome follows not, for Mr. B. saith, I know some places of Scripture may be produced where the word Kingdome and Jerusalem, &c. is taken for a part. Which is enough to shew that the argument is not good which he useth, For it must rest on this proposition, where Jerusalem is mentioned there all Jerusalem is meant, where Kingdomes are mea…t whole Kingdomes are meant, and therefore infants: which propositions are co…tradicted by Mr. B. himself, and therefore it the whole controversie were referred to these two texts Matth. 23.37. Rev. 11.15. to decide, Mr. Bs. cause would be lost for want of proof, even from his own confession. Nor doth Mr. B. produce any thing to prove that by [Kingdoms Revel. 11.15.) is meant the whole o… a Kingdome even the infants, but onelyonly prattles that which me thinks a learned man should be a…amed of. For there is no colour of reason to charge them who expound [Kingdom] by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part, with making their own Creed without Scripture, taking words alwayes in an improper sense, making humane language useless, putting by any Scripture such as are produced for Christs Godhead, when he himself saith it is sometimes in Scripture so taken, and gives no proof of its being taken otherwise here. Yea, by rejecting such exposition without rea…on Mr. B. may be m…re truely said to make his own Creed without Scripture, to make the Scripture unintelligible, humane language useless, to fortifie Biddle a…d other deceivers, in their gross opinions of the Anthropomorphites, and others, insomuch that I think if the Arians were refuted no better then Mr. B. doth here the expounding of Kingdoms and Jerusalem synecdochically, Arianism would quickly prevail, and errours easily take, especially with Schollers.
4. Lastly, were it granted that by [Kingdoms] were meant the visible Church; and that infants were a part of the Kingdom thus meant, yet this very text, and that according to Mr Bs. own reasoning▪ would prove the repeal o… their Churchmembership till the accomplishment of the thing meant Rev. 11.15. which whether it be yet, or shall be till the day of judg…ment is very uncertain, For Mr. B. here reasons thus, it cannot be meant of Christs kingdom in the larger sense▪ for so the kingdoms of the world were ever the kin…doms of the Lord and his Christ, and it could not be said that now they are become so In like …anner I may say, if the visible Churchmembership of infants were meant Rev. 11.15. then it was not so before the 7th. trumpet sounded; for it is said, then the kingdoms of the world were become the kingdoms of Christ, if they were then become they were not before, and consequently infants visible churchmembership not before. Now when the 7th. trumpet sounded is uncertain; Mr. Brightman makes it to begin at Qu. Elizabeths reign, the New Annotations when Antichrist is weakened, Mr. Mede at the imperial reign of Christ in the great day of judgement, which v. 17, 18. do favour. And if infants be not visible Churchmembers till then, when perhaps there shall be no infants at all, Mr. B. will have but a very cold suit of it, if the deciding of the whole controversie, whethe… infants must be Churchmembers, be referred to this text alone. But enough, if not too much of these ridiculous though confident allegations of Mr. B.