Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 72
SECT. LXXII. Mr. Bs. 21th. Arg. ch 26. from the absurdity of my Doctrine making all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil, is answered.
CH. 26. saith he, The 21th. arg. That doctrine which maketh all infants to be members of the visible Kingdome of the Devil, is false doctrine: But that doctrine which denieth any infants to be members of the visible Church, doth make them all members of the visible Kingdome of the …evil: Therefore it is false doctrine. Mr. T. taketh the like reasoning hainously from Mr. M. as if were injurious so to charge him: And he saith, 1. Consequences remote must not be fastened on men when they deny them▪ 2. Many unbaptized are not in the visible Kingdome of the Devil; and asketh, whether children be in or out of that Kingdome before Baptism: If out, then by not baptizing he leaves them not in it, &c▪ To this I answer, 1. He that saith, infants are all shut out of heaven, may well be charged for teaching that they go to … because the consequence is not remote, but direct, among th…se that acknowledge not a third place. 2. I will onelyonly lay a true charge on the doctrine and not the persons: The doctrine sure may be charged with the consequences, though the person may not. 3. It is not your denial of Baptism directly, that leaveth infants in the visible Kingdome of the Devil; but your denial of their churchmembership: Therefore to those vain passages I answer, That it's true, that many unbaptized are in the Kingdome of Christ, and so many infants also; and so not in the visible Kingdome of the Devil: But that no man who is known to be out of Christs visible Church, ordinarily can be out of Satans visible Kingdome, I shall now prove; and so that your doctrine is guilty of making (I mean not really but doctrinally making) all infants to be members of Satans visible Kingdome, in that you deny any infants to be members of the visible Church.
Answ. 1. That which I said about remote consequences not to be charged on men as their sentence, was spoken not from his charge of leaving all the infants to have their actual standing in the visible Kingdome of the Devil, but of putting them all out of the Covenant of grace; and this was made the bloudy sentence of the Anabaptists, though no such thing can be proved of them by any of their sayings. And therefore the two answers here of Mr. B. are impertinent, my speeches being about another point, though perhaps somewhat like it, and charged on us with it. And to Mr. Bs. answers I reply, 1. Mr. B. seems to me to oppose ineptly a direct consequence to a remote, whereas a near consequence is opposed to a remote, not a direct; for a remote consequence may be direct▪ as well as a near. But it is frequent with Mr. B. to abuse words. 2. If a person acknowledge a third place they that shut infants out of heaven may not be charged with it as their sentence, that they go to hell, which Mr. Bs. limitation intimates he acknowledgeth. And then by like reason this is not to be charged on me, for that I deny infants visible churchmembership, that I leave them in the visible Kingdome of the Devil, sith I leave them in a neutral state, of which more anon. 3. I shall examine the charge on my Doctrine, which I deny by denying the minor of Mr. Bs. syllogism. 4. Though Mr. B. call the passages in my Apology, p. 64. vain, yet it will appear there's no vanity in any of them. 5. The argument by which I proved that unbaptized persons may be in Christs visible Kingdome, which (Mr. B. confesseth) did fitly oppose Mr. Ms. imputation of leaving them all in the Devils visible Kingdome to whom we denied Baptism, I think will serve against Mr. Bs. opinion. For if it be true that infants are admitted into the visible Church by Baptism (which is his position, p. 24, 25.) then they are out of it afore they are baptized, (for afore admission none is in, but without,) and if so, according to Mr. Bs. doctrine, infants are in the visible Kingdome of the Devil, sith he denies a third estate, and the horrid consequence is to be charged on Mr. Bs. doctrine, not on mine. 6. Mr. Bs. way of charging my doctrine is at vain as Mr. Ms. Thus it proceeds.
For if it be certain (as you say) that no infants are members of the vis…ble Church, they are out of it: And then I argue thus. If there be no third estate on earth, but all are either in the visible Church of Christ, or in the visible Kingdome of the Devil; then that doctrine which puts them out of the visible Church of Christ, doth leave them in the visible Kingdome of the Devil. But that there is no third state, but that all the world is in one of the two Kingdomes, I prove thus. The common definition of the Church affirmeth them to be a people called out of the world, and Christ faith, he hath chosen them out of the world, and that they are not of the world, and in the same place divers times call's the Devil [the Prince of this world,] Joh. 12.31. & 14.30. & 16.11. & 15.19. & 18.36. & 17.6, 16. And the Apostle calleth him the God of the world, 2 Cor. 4.4. So then, if the Devil be the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church, and out of which the Church is taken: then all those that are not taken out of the world with the Church, are still of the world where Satan is Prince: But the antecedent is before proved, therefore the consequent is true. The world and the Church contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution.
Answ. 1. The world and the Church are not in all the places cited contradistinct. For Joh. 18.36. this world comprehends the Church as well as them without, Christs Kingdome was not from the Church by their weapons, or other procurement; but this world is opposed to heavenly power, and gift, from whence Christ had his Kingdome. 2. Nor in the rest of the places where the Devil is termed the God of this world, or the Prince of this world, or the Disciples are said not to be of the world, can the speech be meant of infants; for of them of whom it is said that the Devil is the God of this world, by the world are meant, 2 Cor. 4.4. those that believe not, in whom he hath blinded their minds, that the light of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ should not shine unto them; and so must the rest be understood, where he is said to be the Prince of this world, according to what is said Ephes. 2.2. which is not to be said of infants; and in other places, as John 15.19. John 17.14.16. they are said to hate the Apostles, which is not to be said of infants: And therefore from hence they are not proved to be in the Devils Kingdome, though they were reprobates. 3. The world is not in these places opposed to the visible Church, so that who ever are in the visible Church are not of the world, and they who are of the world are not of the visible Church. For 1. the world out of whom the Apostles were called, were the Jewish Church, which if Mr. B. do not (as I conceive he doth) make the visible Church of God when the Apostles were called, sure Mr. Bl. Mr. Cobbet, and others do, as I have shewed before, and therefore the world is not put as contradistinct to the visible Church. 2. The world is in the places cited so described by their actions of hating the Apostles, by their exclusion out of Christs prayer, Joh. 17.9. by their Prince Satan, by the Apostles calling and choosing out of them, that the world cannot be construed onelyonly to note non-visible churchmembers, but a party that are obstinate enemies to Christ, and so reprobates, whether in the visible Church, or out of it; and if it stand in direct contradistinction to the Church (which I find not in any of the places cited) it is to the invisible, not to the meer visible Church: so that they who are without the visible Church, may be no part of the world therein meant; and they that are within the visible Church, may be part of the world. 4. The definition, that the Church are a people called out of the world, being expounded of the visible Church, is meant of outward call, which infants are not capable of, and so the definition excludes infants from being a part of the Church there meant, and yet they are not in the world in the sense in which it is taken in the Texts mentioned (except Joh. 18.36.) For they are not haters of Christ or his Apostles, nor recusant unbelievers, nor such as obey Satan as their Prince. But if it be expounded of the invisible Church, and the calling meant of invisible operation of the spirit, I deny not but elect infants may be so called out of the world, and be part of the invisible Church.
These things premised, I answer 1. The conclusion is not in the latter syllogism the same with the minor in the former syllogism which should have been proved. 2. The antecedent or minor in the later syllogism, which is this, [the Devil is the Prince and God of the world as it is distinct from the Church, and out of which the Church is taken.] if it be meant of the visible Church I deny. For neither is the world in any of the Texts distinct from the visible Church, but the visible Church or some members of it are the world there meant, and the Devil the Prince of them, and the visible Church in respect at least of many perhaps most of their members not taken out of the world, but in it still; nor is the Devil the Prince of them that yet are uncalled by an outward call from the world, if as infants they be not by their choice and actions conjoyned to the world, but of them that voluntarily adhere to and act with the wicked world. Infants are neither in the world as it is there taken, nor without, that is, they are neither with them nor agai…st them in their present state; but (as they say in Logick) a whelp till the 9th. day is neither blind nor seeing, so an infant till it act is neither within nor without the world visibly, in which Satan is Prince. Nor are those dictates of Mr. B. true, or proved by the Scriptures cited, that no man who is known to be out of Christs visible Church ordinarily can be out of Satans visible Kingdome, that the world and the Church visible contain all mankind according to the ordinary Scripture distribution. But if [the world] be taken for reprobates, and the Church be taken for the invisible Church of the elect, I grant it is true that infants are in one part, and that Satan or God is Prince of them: But this is nothing for Mr. Bs. purpose, though it be most agreeable to some passages, as Joh. 17.9, &c. about the world and the Church.
Mr. B. proceeds thus. If it be said, that yet they are not visibly in Satans Kingdome: I answer, If no infants be of Christs visible Church, and this be a known thing, then they are visibly out of it; and if they be visibly out of that Church, then they are visibly of the world which is Satans Kingdome, seeing the world and the Church contain all.
Answ. Neither is it true, that if it be a known thing that infants be not of Christs visible Church, then they are visibly out of it▪ except it be so known from their sensible action; nor do the world, taken in the sense opposite to Gods people, and the visible Church contain all, as Mr. B. dictates. Mr. B. adds.
If it be said, they may be of the invisible Church, and yet not of the visible, nor of Satans Kingdome; I answer, 1. it is visibly and not invisibly that the aforesaid distribution is to be understood. 2. I shall anon prove, that the visible Church is wider then the invisible, and that ordinarily we may not judge any to be of the invisible Church, who are not of the visible.
Answ. 1. How far the former speech is true or false, is shewed before. 2. As for the later, though we may not judge ord…narily these or those particular persons to be of the invisible Church who are not of the visible, yet we may judge some infants at least are so, though non… be of the visible Church.
Again (saith Mr. B.) it appears that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out: Therefore those that are not fetcht out are in it still: And no man can say they are fetcht out except by some means or other it be visible or discernable, Heb. 2.14· Christ destroyed by death him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others. Therfore seeing Mr. T. buildeth so much on this Apol. p. 66. That infants are neither in the kingdom of Christ, nor Satan, visibly till profession, either be must prove that God hath left it wholly in the dark, and not revealed that any infants are of Satans v…sible kingdom, or of Christs (the contrary whereof is abundantly proved) or he must find out some 3d. kingdom or society, and so find out some 3d. King b…sides the King of the Church, and the Prince of this world; and it's like he wil bee put to finde out a third place for them hereafter, besides heaven and hell.
Answ. It is a weariness to the flesh to write books, it is much more when a man is to answer such scriblings as this of Mr. B. which being so magnified as it hath been, and written with so much confidence and insolent provocations, is a monument of the boldness and shallowness of readers and writers in this age. What frivolous arguing are here, Christ destroyed him that had the power of death, Satan had this power of death visibly over infants as well as others, Ergo they were of Satans kingdom as it is contradistinct to Christs visible Church till Christ by death fetcht them out? If Satans power of death visibly over infants, shew them to be in Satans visible kingdome as contradistinct to the visible Church, doth not the same prove all the infants of believers to be in Satans visible kingdome, as well as the infants of unbelievers? yea doth it not prove the visible Church to be in Satans visible kingdome? For over them Satan had this power of death as visibly as over the infants of unbelievers. Yea wherein doth the power of death visibly shew a persons being in the visible kingdome of Satan more then Jobs smiting in his body by Satan, or the womans who was a daughter of Abraham and bound by Satan 18. years, shewed them to have been then in the visible kingdome of the Devil as contradistinct to the visible Churth? Besides those that Christ is said to have fetcht out or delivered are those who through fear of death were all their life-time sub…ect to bondage, Heb. 2▪ …4. Doth Mr. B. interpret this of infants? Besides if it appear that infants generally were of Satans kingdome visibly till Christ fetcheth them out, therefore those that are not fetcht out are in still: And no man can say they are fetcht out, except by some means or other it be visible or discernable, How can Mr. B. say any infants of believers are fetcht out o… Satans kingdome visibly? By what means is it visible or discernable that a believers infant is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome and … an unbelievers? Christs death was visible it's true, but that either Christs death did destroy visibly Satan, or visibly delivered those who were subject to bondage, or that by it is visible or discernable that a believers infant and not an unbelievers is fetcht out of Satan's visible kingdom, is unknown to me. The ordinary meanes whereby it is visible that a person is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdom is in that he hears, obeys, and professeth the Gospel. Surely by this means or any other it is not visible or discernable, that any infant of the most sincere believer is fetcht out of Satans visible kingdome, therefore by Mr. Bs. own suppositions hee cannot say that any believers infant is fetcht out of the visible kingdome of the Devil, and so his argument is retorted on him: That doctrine which leaveth all infants in the visible kingdome of the Devil is false: But such is Mr. Bs. according to his own suppositions. Ergo. As for what hee would impose on mee, it is false, that God hath left it in the dark, it is clear as light at noon, that infants are neither in Christs nor Satans visible kingdome, and yet they have Christ or Satan for their …ing, and are to bee in heaven or hell, as they are elect or reprobate; And therefore his talk of what I must finde out is but his prattle, and of what hee hath abundantly proved, is but his idle vapouring of himself.
3. Saith hee, Sure the Apostle calls the world [them that are without] as distinct from the Church visible, who are within, Col. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.12. And hee speaks it as the dreadfull misery of them, those that are without God judgeth, 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. Now infants are either within or without, and to bee without is to bee of the world which the Devil is by Christ said to be Prince of.
Answ. To bee without Mark 4.11. is to bee without, not within Gods election; to bee without Revel. 22.15. is to bee without the gates of the city the new Hierusalem, which I take to bee all one as to be cast into outer darkness as Christ terms it. Either of these ways all infants are within or without, but [those without] in the places cited by Mr. B. cannot bee said of infants, for they are not persons towards whom wee are to walk in wisedome, Col. 4.5. or honesty, 1 Thes. 4.12. this beeing required that our example may not harden them, but it were ridiculous to require this in respect of infants. The Apostle doth not speak it as the dreadfull misery of them that are without that God judgeth them 1 Cor. 5.12. but onelyonly mentions it as an intimation why they belonged not to his judgement, nor doth hee in any of the places term them the world, who are without the visible Church, or Christ say that Satan is Prince of all that are not visible Churchmembers, but of the world of reprobates, and such as are contrary to Christ and in whom he rules nor is the term [those that are without] in any of those places taken for them that are without privatively for want of capacity to understand, profess, and act for Christ, but for those who are positively without by the acts of their own will, not receiving Christ, nor embracing the profession of him, such as were unbelievers, fornicators, idolaters, &c. 1 Cor. 5.10, 11, 12. Such as could observe and did stumble at the evil practises of the Christians, Col. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.12. in which sense it is not true that infants are without, though they be privatively or negatively without the visible Church.