Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
THe Argument from Mat. 19.15. Mar. 10.14.16. Luke 18.15, 16, 17. may be formed in divers manners:Exercitat. Firſt thus;S. 6. The Arguments from Mat. 19.15. for Infant-Baptiſm, examined. They are to be buptized, whom Chriſt commands to be brought to him, being moved with indignation towards his diſciples that repelled them.
But Chriſt commands Infants to be brought to him. Ergo. That this Argument may be examined, it is to be conſidered:
1. Who they were that brought theſe children.
2. What little children they were that were brought.
3. Upon what motives.
4. To what end.
5. What time.
6. In what place they brought them.
7. For what cauſe the Apoſtles did repell them.
8. For what cauſe Chriſt being angry with the Apoſtles, commanded them to be brought.
In many of theſe we have ſcarce any thing beſide conjectures which we may follow, neither have I leiſure or books to look into all things which Commentators have diſcourſed concerning theſe heads.
As for the 1 it is ſuppoſed that the bringers were either parents, or other beleevers, who at leſt wiſhed well to the little children; which is probable from the end for which they brought them, to wit, that he might bleſſe them, and pray for them; for this ſheweth faith and love.
As for the ſecond, it is probable they were children of Iews, becauſe this was done in the coaſts of Iudea, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. But whether the parents of the children beleeved in Chriſt or otherwiſe, is not manifeſt.
As for the third, concerning the motive, there is little certain, whether it were upon the ſight, or hearing of that which Chriſt did Mat. 18.2. or from a cuſtome among the Iews, of ſeeking the bleſſing of Prophets and holy men for their little ones, as Rebekah for Iacob, Ioſeph for his ſons; or from the fame of things done upon the prayers of Chriſt; or an inſtinct from God, that occaſion might be given of teaching the things that Chriſt taught upon this matter; or ſome other motive.
As for the fourth, the end is expreſſed by Matthew, that he might put on hands and pray; by Mark and Luke that he might touch them, which tends to impart a bleſſing.
As for the fifth, Matthew points at the time, by the particle [then] and both Mark and Matthew, put it after the diſſertation with the Phariſees concerning divorce, and the anſwer to the Diſciples exception, which Mark teſtifies was made in the houſe; Luke puts it after the parable of the Publican and the Phariſce, but he is wont to relate things out of their right place. But what the holy Spirit doth intimate, by noting the time preciſely, I gueſſe not, unleſſe perhaps he would have it noted that an occaſion was opportunely miniſtred of amplifying the argument concerning making a mans ſelf an Eunuch for the Kingdome of heaven, though this reaſon doth not very much like me.
As for the ſixth, the place is intimated, Mat. 19.1. Mar. 10.1. in the coaſts of Iudea, beyond Iordan, in Mat. By the farther ſide of Iordan, in Mark; about which it availeth not to our preſent purpoſe to inquire.
As for the ſeventh, the reaſon of repelling, is not known, but by conjecture, it is probable this bringing of little children, was troubleſome to them, either becauſe it did interrupt Chriſts Speech about marriage, and fitneſſe to the Kingdome of heaven, or becauſe they ſought reſt in the houſe, or becauſe they did think this bringing would be in vain.
As for the eighth, Chriſt without doubt, was angry with the Diſciples, becauſe they hindred the occaſion of doing good to men, whereas Chriſt went about doing good, Act. 10.38. And in this buſineſſe the faith of the bringers was to be cheriſhed, and the power of bleſſing in Chriſt was to be manifeſted, and the excellent doctrine to be delivered concerning little childrens being capable of the Kingdome of heaven, of the quality of them who receive the Kingdome of heaven; but whether Chriſt would that this fact ſhould remain as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the Infants of believers, is yet a queſtion. It ſeemes ſcarce probable it ſhould be ſo.
1 Becauſe Baptiſme of Infants, being meerly poſitive, ſo obſcure and doubtfull an inſtitution, is without example and reaſon.
2 Becauſe we find no practiſe or hint in Scripture, which may expound this fact to this ſenſe.
3 Becauſe, if he had given a command to the Apoſtles of baptizing Infants, he had rather ſaid, bring the little children to me, then ſuffer them to be brought to me.
4 He had declared whoſe Infants he would have baptized, and not have ſpoken ſo indefinitely, it is certain, before the command, Mat. 28.19, 20. There is no precept extant, concerning baptizing Gentiles, much leſs concerning baptizing the Infants of the Gentils.
5 The words, ſuffer & forbid not, and foreign theſe little children, as Beza reads, ſhew that Chriſts words are ment only of thoſe childrē.
6 If this fact pertain to Baptiſm, thē we muſt ſay, that Chriſt baptized; the contrary whereof is ſaid, Ioh. 4.2. As for that whic… is objected, that 3 Evangeliſts rehearſe this fact, that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn, of bringing Infants to Chriſt by an outward Ordinance, which is not done but by Baptiſme, it is weak: For,
1. Three Euangeliſts rehearſe the bringing of the palſie man to Chriſt, the acceſſe of the leprous perſon to Chriſt, and many other things, from which yet no perpetuall rule is formed.
2. If any rule be hence to be formed, that is to be perpetually obſerved, this relation will ſerve more fitly to eſtabliſh Epiſcopall confirmation, by laying on hands, and praying, then Presbyteriall baptiſme.
Secondly, we muſt diſtinguiſh, concerning bringing to Chriſt; there is a bringing to Chriſt, by locall ad motion, there is another bringing to Chriſt by ſpirituall inſtruction; this bringing to Chriſt, is the cauſe of Baptiſme, not the other: for many were brought by the command of Chriſt, to Chriſt, as the blind ſon of Timaeus, and others, of whoſe baptiſme, or converſion we read not; for not all that were corporally healed by Chriſt, were alſo ſpiritually healed, as we are to ſay of the nine Lepers, Malchus, and others.
3 The Argument ſuppoſeth they may be baptized whom Chriſt commands to be brought; but neither is this true of ſpiritual bringing, for not thoſe whom he commands to be brought ſpiritually are to be baptized, but thoſe whom he hath brought. As for that which is ſaid, that they are repelled from Chriſt, that are repelled from baptiſme; It is a light thing, for baptiſme doth not bring men to Chriſt, unleſſe the perſons be firſt in Chriſt. Neither is therefore any man repelled from Chriſt, becauſe he is not baptized, but when he is kept back being ſit for baptiſme. The Argument therefore is anſwered by denying the major, univerſally taken.
Mr. T. here reports divers forms of Arguments out of theſe places of Scripture quoted by him,Animadverſ. and ſome of them he repreſents to us very lamely formed, and therefore the eaſilier put off by him; but among all, not one ſo formed, as was wont among us, where I have been. I will urge therefore one form which perhaps will break the edge of moſt that Mr. T. hath anſwered here; and then I will conſider what more is conſiderable in his anſwers to the forms he hath ſet down. Our Argument is this.
To whom indefinitely as ſuch, heaven, and the bleſſing of and for heaven belongs, to them as ſuch the ſeal of conveighance, or confirmation of heaven and that bleſſing belongs. For if the land be mine, the deeds and ſeals of conveighance are mine:
But heaven and the bleſſing of and for heaven belongs indefinitely to ſuch little children, more, whiles little children; ſo the texts 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 conveighance, or confirmation of heaven, and the bleſſing of heaven, which in the New Teſtament, according to the time Chriſt ſpake, is Baptiſme.
Obj. Say the Anabaptiſts,S.D. though it be thus ſaid of theſe little children, yet not of all.
Anſw. Therefore we ſaid to little children indefinitely, and ſo to be applyed to all ſuch as theſe are; as it is ſaid in theſe texts of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven, &c. even as election, and the promiſes of the Goſpel were indefinitely ſo and ſo propounded in the Primitive times but to thoſe then; yet by the ſame reaſon as propounded to them, juſt ſo to be applyed to us. Now doubtleſſe THE, or THAT ſame ſeed of Abraham, to wit, Chriſt, means ſuch little children as agreed with the tenor of the Covenant to his father Abraham: namely, little children whoſe parents were reputed beleevers. And therefore theſe things ſpoken by our Saviour belong indefinitely to the like little children. As Mr. T. confeſſeth after that Mr. Beza renders it of theſe and the like infants.
Obj. But,S.D. ſay the Anabaptiſts, here is no mention of Baptiſme.
Anſw. But our argument infers Baptiſme. 2 Here is mention of, and doing of an after-higher thing then baptiſme, namely, confirmation of them by prayer, and impoſition of hands*This Mr. T. confeſſeth in expreſſe words after in his anſwer to the 2 form of argument from theſe texts, p. 19. of his Ex…rcit.. Now, if Chriſt ſpeaks of, and doth ſuch after higher things to ſuch little children whiles little children, how much more may that which in nature antecedes and goes before theſe, namely, baptiſme be adminiſtred to them whiles ſuch little children?
For the clearing this of impoſition of hands, learned Pareus hath theſe words on Hebr. 6.2.
Some, ſaith he, conjoyn the two heads of Baptiſmes, and impoſition of hands; becauſe as there were two ranks of Catechumeni, catechized perſons, ſo there was a two fold innitiating ceremony.
1 Thoſe of ripe yeers of the heathen did before their baptiſme recite the Articles of the Creed, touching the Chriſtian faith. And this was the catechiſing or doctrine of Baptiſmes.
2. The Infants of Chriſtians, who by the right of the promiſe were baptized in their infancie, who being paſt their childhood, were received into the Church by impoſition of hands, where or at which time they firſt recited the ſame heads or Articles of faith before the Church.
And this was the doctrine of impoſition of hands. So Pareus.
So Calvin, Bullinger, Auguſt, Marlorat, Hofman, Theophylact, onelyonly they ſpake more home, if you preciſely obſerve their words, which are [C] theſe, The doctrine of Baptiſmes, impoſition of hands, and of the reſurrection of the dead, and the laſt judgement ought to be read conjoynedly, with a certain Appoſition (as the Grammarians call it) in this ſence; Not laying again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the reſurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of Baptiſme, and Impoſition of hands. Therefore if you include in a parentheſis theſe two ſentences, the doctrines of Baptiſmes and Impoſition of hands, the context will run more fluently. For unleſſe you read it appoſitively, this abſurditie will follow, that the ſame thing will be twiſe repeated. For what is the doctrine of Baptiſme but that which he here reckons, to wit, Of faith towards God, of repentance, of the laſt judgement, and the like. The ſolemnities and ſtanding ſet dayes of baptizing he cals Baptiſmes in the plurall numer, [T] otherwiſe there is but one baptiſme in the Chriſtian Church. Epheſ. 4.5. [C] He joyns together with baptiſme, the impoſition of hands, becauſe as there were two orders of catechiſed perſons, ſo there was a double ceremony. For thoſe that were forreigners without, did not come to Baptiſme, before they had made a confeſſion of their faith. In them therefore catechiſing was wont to go before Baptiſme. But as for the children of beleevers, becauſe they were adopted from the wombe, and by the right of the promiſe did appertain to the body of the Church, they were baptized when Infants. But being paſt infantie, after they were inſtructed in the faith, they offered themſelves alſo to catechiſing, which in theſe followed baptiſme. But another ſymbol or ſigne was applyed to theſe, namely, the impoſition of hands. [A. M.] of which there was a various uſe [H.] For by impoſition of hands ſometimes Chriſt, ſometimes the Apoſtles cured the ſick. Luk. 4.10. Mar. 16.18. Sometimes by impoſition of hands the holy Ghoſt was conferred. Act. 8.17. [B.] Alſo the hands of the Paſtors were impoſed upon thoſe to whom, and to whoſe faithfulneſſe was committed the care of the Church, or the Miniſterie of the Word, 1 Tim. 5.21. [C] Impoſition of hands alſo was a certain ſolemn right or manner of praying, of which the Apoſtle here ſpeaks. (Hebr. 6.2.) For by this ſymbol or ſigne (of laying on of hands) they would approve that profeſſion of faith which young youth coming out of childhood, did make. Therefore this place alone abundantly teſtifies that the originall of impoſition of hands came down from the Apoſtles. Thus far theſe learned mens words reaſons and Scripture-proof. See more in Marlo. on 1 Tim. 5.21. But we may not omit Mr. Cotton, becauſe he is in ſuch credit with Mr. Tombes, that he oft reſpectively quotes him as for himſelf in his Exercit.
Mr. Cottons words on Hebr. 6.2. are theſe.Way of C…u: of N.E. Chap. 2. p. 27. of 1 edit. There be that conceive, & that not improbable, that in ancient time the children baptized in the Church, were not received to the Lords Supper, nor into the full fruition of all Church-liberties, untill that they being grown up to yeers, did publickly before the Church profeſſe their faith, and ratifie the covenant made for them in baptiſme, and ſo were confirmed (as they call it) in their Church eſtate; which was not done without impoſition of hands; which ſome judicious Divines have conceived to be one cauſe why impoſition of hands is reckoned as one of the ſix principles of the foundation of Chriſtian Religion, Hebr. 6.2. For it could not be a principle of the foundation of Chriſtian faith; it muſt therefore be a principle of the foundation of Church eſtate, and order. Now then if all the members of the Church were anciently confirmed in the ful fruition of the Church eſtate by impoſition of hands, then there were none of the members of the Church, but had received impoſition of hands, much more the Ruling-elders, who over and above the former were ordained to their publick office, by impoſition of hands; and ſo having received impoſition of hands themſelves, they might more freely lay hands on others. So Mr. Cotton.
By all this it is clear, that this impoſition of hands by Chriſt on theſe little children in the texts afore quoted, Matth. 17. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. according to the order ſet down by the Apoſtle, Hebr. 6.2. did ſucceed and follow after their baptiſme, as ſuppoſed and granted to be baptiſed afore.
Obj. But ſay the Anabaptiſts, it is in the text, of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven; that is, of men like infants.
Anſw.
1. We heard afore how Mr. Beza renders it of theſe and the like, as relating to little children. And his grave and learned pious judgement is as much to be credited as any Anabaptiſt, in ſaying it is ſo or ſo.
2 The Greek Authors do oft take foreign ſuch, for hoc, this.Bud. Conſt. Plaet.
3 If rendred ſuch, its farre more naturall, and not ſo farre fetcht to ſay of ſuch little children of whom the ſtory is, then of ſuch men.
But fourthly, come to reaſon. Chriſt, Mar. 10.16. ſpeaks of them whom he took up in his arms, Paſſ. Veſſius.( foreign of foreign and foreign, an arm. Luk. 2.28. of foreign ulna. per epentheſin literarum foreign.) But he took up not the men, but the little children into his arms, and laid his hands upon them, and bleſſed them; therefore of them he ſpake, and ſhewed that heaven and the bleſſing of heaven belonged to them.
5 That by diſcourſe upon this, v. 15. Whoſoever ſhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe, ſhall not enter therein, is alſo for us. For the thing and the compariſon muſt agree in the main ſcope; but men muſt as little children receive the kingdom of God. Therefore little children are in a capacitie of that kingdom.
6 If we argue but from Chriſt laying on of hands upon the little ones, according to their intent that brought them, v. 13. and bleſſing them; this is an argument ſufficient that he meant that bleſſing, and conſequently (if but from bleſſing) heaven did belong to thoſe little ones. For foreign laying his hands in them, muſt needs agree to foreign, little children, not to foreign, whoſoever will not receive the kingdom as a childe; by reaſon of the gender, and number.
That objection of ſome Anabaptiſts, that Chriſt took them up in his arms of mercy; not of his body; is too frivelous (turning the naked hiſtory into an allegorie) and not worthy of an anſwer.
Now let us ſee what is left conſiderable in Mr. T. his anſwer to the firſt form of Argument out of Matth. 19. Mar. 10. &c. as he reports the Argument.
To his poſition (after his long Analyſis of theſe places) That it is a queſtion, ſcarce probable, whether Chriſt would have this fact remain as a perpetuall rule for baptizing the infants of beleevers. We anſwer. That the argument, as Mr. T. preſents it to us, doth not ſay ſo: but onelyonly intends to ſhew all things to have been in them that were neceſſary to put them into a capacitie, to receive baptiſme. And that they are ſuppoſed here to have been afore baptized, before they were brought to this higher addition of impoſition of hands, and bleſſing.
To Mr. T. his 1, 2, 3, Reaſons of that his concluſion, we likewiſe ſay, that the argument doth not drive at an inſtitution of baptizing infants here that I can perceive in the words.
To his fourth Reaſon our reply is: It is intimated here that Beleevers infants ſhould be baptized, as we ſhewed but now, in our form of argument from theſe texts. And Chriſt ſpeaks very indefinitely in Matth. 28. (quoted by Mr. Tombes) the grand place of Antipaedo baptiſts. When Mr. T. ſaith there is no precept extant concerning baptizing Gentiles, I ſuppoſe he means not abſolutely. For is it not ſaid, Matth. 28. Go baptiſe foreign, all the (Gentile) nations, and therefore the Gentiles are not excluded. Or elſe the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts muſt be condemned for baptiſing the Ennuch, the Centurion, &c. without a rule. Or if Mr. T. means no rule extant here in Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. we have touched already, that the words of the argument do not extend thither. For Mr. Tombes his other expreſſion in this fourth Reaſon, That there is no precept extant concerning the baptiſing the infants of the Gentiles; If he means this abſolutely, we have ſhewed the contrary already out of Gen. 17. Matth. 28. Act. 15. and ſhall I truſt ſpeak more. If he means no precept here, Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. he ſpeaks not to the argument.
To Mr. T. his fifth Reaſon, we ſay that foreign cannot be certainly rendred, thoſe little ones (iſtos puerulos, as Beza once hath it). For firſt the article is innumerable times redundant, and ſupervacaneous. Secondly, that if intended for an emphaſis here, it would ſound in my eare more harmoniouſly to the ſcope of the text thus; ſuffer thoſe little ones, that you deſpiſe, becauſe little ones; for I eſteem them; for of ſuch, &c. So that the emphaſis relates to their age, little ones, not to their number, juſt thoſe and no more. It ayms at their kind of condition, not individualitie of their perſons. Thirdly, for. Mr. T. his authority of Beza, though in Matth. 19.14. he renders foreign (iſtos puerulos) thoſe little ones, of which our beſt Engliſh tranſlation takes no notice though the Tranſlators much regarded him, yet the ſame Beza, in Mar. 10.16. Luk. 18.15. twiſe renders the ſame Greek phraſe foreign puerulos, little children, without any thoſe or the like terme.
To Mr. T. his ſixth Reaſon out of Job. 4.2. it is not to any thing in the expreſſe of argument, as Mr. T. hath given it us. For that which follows, that ſome of us ſhould object that three Evangeliſts rehearſe this fact, that thence a perpetuall rule may be drawn, of bringing infants to Chriſt, by an outward ordinance, which is not done but by baptiſme. To which Mr. T. ſaith it is weak for three cauſes he alledgeth. Our reply is, we could wiſh from our heart, Mr. Tombes would have quoted where theſe arguments be, if in print. For we hardly come by this little time (as dear bought) to give theſe few Animadverſions; and ſo have none ſuper-abounding to look over all the books in Town of this argument to find a clauſe. Or elſe that Mr. T…mles would preſent us with every argument at firſt in full, that we might know whether it be the ſame mans proſecutions, or whether Mr. T. pickt it up elſewhere. I intend not to juſtifie extravagancies; or to make a ſubſtance of every circumſtantiall expreſſion, that fals from any mans mouth, or pen. Or to ſay he fights with a bilbo-blade, when it is but a bulruſh. But this I may ſay to the particular now in hand, that it is not nothing, that three Evangeliſts rehearſe this fact of Chriſts bleſſing and promiſing heaven to little children. That ſtill they were brought to him for an outward ordinance, impoſition of hands, that that ordinance given to them, did ſuppoſe a former, namely, Baptiſme (as we have ſhewed). And therfore if a little child be brought for the firſt ordinance that he as ſuch is capable of (as children were of circumciſion) it muſt be to baptiſme. And this may be a rule.
To Mr. T. his firſt cauſe againſt the objection in his ſixt Reaſon, we ſay onelyonly this, that though 3. Evangeliſts rehearſe the bringing of the palſey man to Chriſt, yet Chriſt doth not bid any to bring him, or further him to him; as he did of theſe little ones when he ſaw them kept off; as knowing he had impoſition of hands and bleſſing for them, which he had not for many others. Chriſt did not onelyonly cheriſh their faith that brought them (as Mr. T. affirms) but alſo cheriſhed that baptiſme the children had received, and as Mr. T. confeſſed in the cloſe of his Analyſis, further manifeſted (out of his own mouth) that theſe little ones were capable of heaven. And yet thus much is to be ſaid of the palſy man, that Chriſt ſeeing the bearers of him to uncover the roof of the houſe, yet neither he, nor the owners for his ſake reproving that wrong done, which was a ſpeciall intimation of invitation, it proved in the event, that Chriſt had a great miniſteriall ordinance to be adminiſtred to him, namely, to pronounce to him the forgiveneſſe of his ſins, Mar. 2.9. And from ſuch inſtances as theſe, if Chriſt were now upon earth this rule might be drawn, that beleevers children, and poore ſinners ſhould be welcome to him. And if they, or by the help of their friends, ſhewed much deſire of coming to him, in their ſpeciall indeavour thereunto, Chriſt encouraging, or conniving at their crowding toward him; ſure it would fairly foreſpeak that they ſhould get ſome ſpirituall good by one ordinance or another afore they returned.
To Mr. T. his ſecond cauſe upon the objection in the fourth Reaſon, we have onelyonly this. Firſt, that if theſe texts, Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. will form a perpetuall rule for confirmation of children by impoſition of hands; then it will ſuppoſe, that they are firſt baptized. Secondly, that confirmation as confirmation *You heard of the original and manner of Scripture impoſition of hands afore, though after abuſed in later ages. See Marlo. on Hebr. 6.2., is not Epiſcopall, no more then Baptiſme of beleevers infants is Preſbyteriall; but both are Scripturiall (if I may ſo ſpeak to eccho to Mr. T. his diſtinction.)
To the third cauſe in anſwer to the objection in this ſixth Reaſon onelyonly this; that this argument may well ſuppoſe that they had been baptized whom Chriſt commanded to be brought to him, and ſo commends this to them, That theirs is the kingdom of God, and bleſſeth them. Yea can Mr. T. himſelf ſuppoſe leſſe then that they were fitter for baptiſme, then many of the Jewiſh children for circumciſion. And if fit matter (as is the Anabaptiſts own phraſe) why not to have that for which they are fit.
Obj. O but there was no manifeſtation of their fitneſſe.
Anſw. Chriſt manifeſts it of children indefinitely, that of ſuch is the kingdom of God; and to them is the bleſſing. And if Chriſt commands them to be brought ſpiritually, then ſure his command prevails to make them to be brought ſpiritually. And if any be juſtly repelled from baptiſme (the firſt ſeal) ſure they can be no leſſe then repelled from Chriſt for that, and for ſo long. Matth. 3. And if baptiſme (taken in its full latitude) as an ordinance of Chriſt may not be ſaid to bring any to Chriſt, to cloſe with him; ſure it cannot be properly ſaid to bring them to Chriſt, after they be in Chriſt; but rather to confirm them in him.
To his denying the major; we ſay the major is univerſally true, if taken according to the ſence and circumſtances of the Scripture upon which it is grounded, namely, that Chriſt is moſt willing they ſhould be brought to him, and commands them to be brought, to the end to pronounce them bleſſed, and tels us they are fit for it, heaven being theirs. But if the Propoſition be taken as in the expreſſe of the text, indefinitely, there is no univerſall propoſition to croſſe it, as that no infants may have the firſt ſeal.
Secondly, ſaith Mr. Tombes, the argument from theſe texts,Exercit. p. 19 Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. for baptizing infants is this. Thoſe whom Chriſt imbraced laid his hands on, bleſſed, may be baptized: But Chriſt imbraced infants, &c. therefore.
Anſw. This argument (ſaith Mr. T.) ſuppoſeth theſe acts of Chriſt, to have been all one as if he had baptized. But this is ſaid without proof. In very deed that act of bleſſing was more then Baptiſme, Note.and yet it had not the ſame reaſon with baptiſme. Job. 4.2. Chriſt did not baptize, but his diſciples. But that bleſſing was an act by which he obteined ſome ſingular gift from God, by prayers for thoſe infants, upon whom he laid his hands. Nor is this benefit ſaid to be beſtowed on them for the faith of their parents, but of ſingular favour with Chriſt, as Lazarus with his ſiſters, John the Apoſtle, &c. therefore the major propoſition is to be denied. For there is no connexion between this fact, which is extraordinary, and the act of ordinary miniſtery, which is to be fulfilled, according to the Lords preſcription.
We anſwer to Mr. T. his preamble before his anſwer.Animadverſ.
1 That it doth not appear by the argument, nor by report, nor by any thing that I have read, that the Author of this argument or any elſe ever held, that this fact of Chriſt in bleſſing the little ones, &c. was all one with Baptiſme.
2 That this fact doth ſuppoſe a fitneſſe in infants for the leſſer, viz. Baptiſine, that are fit for the greater, namely bleſſing, as here (which Mr. T. now confeſſed to be greater then baptiſme.)
3 This doth ſuppoſe that theſe infants (as Mr. Tombes here cals them) had received baptiſme before they were bleſſed thus by Chriſt. For we find many impoſitions of hands in the Scripture; but conferred on none that I know, but on ſuch as formerly had been baptized, yea ſuppoſed to have grace. See before, in our form of argument on theſe texts of Matt. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. and the learned on Hebr. 6.2.
4 That their baptiſme was beſtowed on them for the faith of their parents, their parents being by all means to be ſuppoſed to be beleevers living in the Church of the Jews and circumciſed; and now they (for who more likely) bringing their children to Chriſt after the Jewiſh cuſtome, as to ſome great Prophet, theſe children after their baptiſme have this bleſſing beſtowed upon them.
5 I do not find where or what that is Mr. T. means touching Lazarus and his ſiſters, and John. But Mr. Tombes will not find us a place or particular where any were bleſſed by Chriſt, with this ſolemne form of bleſſing, which was not onelyonly by lifting up of hands in prayer; but with laying down of hands upon them; but by all circumſtances it preſuppoſeth baptiſme, if not a manifeſtation of grace too.
6 Mr. T. will not find any impoſition of hands for ſpirituall uſe upon any in the New Teſtament but on ſuch as by all means muſt be ſuppoſed to have been baptized. As in the old Teſtament the Patriarks layed not their hands of bleſſing, but on thoſe that had been circumciſed.
Secondly, to Mr. T. his deny all of the major Propoſition, as if there were no connexion between this bleſſing and baptiſme. We ſay firſt, there is a connexion in the things, as between the foundation, and the edifice, as between firſt and ſecond, the ſecond ſuppoſing the firſt. And there is a connexion in the argument à fortiori. If the greater be done, which is not done till after the leſſer; then the greater ſuppoſeth the leſſer as its introductorie.
To the touch, that this bleſſing by Chriſt by impoſition of hands was extraordinary:
1 It was not extraordinarie, that is unuſuall, for it was cuſtomary with the Patriarks and Prophets to lay on hands, and bleſſe them that had the 1 ſeal, circumciſion.
2 If extraordinary ſignifies ſupernaturall, ſo is every ordinance, both in the inſtitution, and efficacie ſupernaturall.
3 If extraordinarie be put here to ſignifie extraordinary gifts, above ordinarie ſaving grace, or the increaſe of it; there is nothing in theſe texts to make it out. For here is nothing to repreſent the ſame but confirmation of ſaving grace; other miracularie or ſupereminent gifts to act withal, were not given to children, that we read.
4 That though impoſition of hands did ſometimes ſignifie and conveigh extraordinary miraculary gifts, and callings to offices upon men; yet impoſition did betoken uſually, ordinary grace and things for men and children as we ſhewed afore, and more might be ſhewed out of Hebr. 6.2.
The third Argument which Mr. T. preſents to us (as ours) out of theſe texts of Matth. 19. Mar. 10. Luk. 18. is this.Exerci. p. 19. They may be baptized, whoſe is the kingdom of heaven. But of infants is the kingdom of heaven. Erge.
1. Mr. T. Anſw. The Major (ſaith he) is true, if it be underſtood of thoſe whoſe is the kingdom of heaven, when it appears the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Secondly, It is not ſaid in the text [of infants is the kingdom of heaven] but of ſuch it the kingdom of heaven. And Chriſt expounds what he means, Mar. 10.25. Euk. 18.17. to wit, of them who in humilitie of mind are like little children, as it is Matt. 18.3, 4. but if [of ſuch] be to be expounded as Beza would annotat in Mat. 19.14. [of theſe and the like] as above, Mat. 18. it is not proved from thence that the kingdom of heaven perteins to all infants of beleevers, but to them whom he bleſſed, and to thoſe perſons who either are ſo bleſſed, or are converted, and humble as little children. Whence we deny, firſt, the major if taken univerſally. Secondly, the minor as it is put indefinitely.
We anſwer. To what Mr. T. ſaith in the firſt place.Animadverſe 1 That Mr. T. his anſwer to the major is a meer repetition, if not a begging of the queſtion, that none whiles infants are to be baptized?
2 There was a contrary rule in the old Teſtament, and part of the New, that infants of reputed beleevers ſhould have the firſt ſeal of circumciſion.
3 There is no ſuch rule for limitation (as Mr. Tombes mentions) expreſſed in all the New Teſtament, That none may be baptized till it appeared the kingdom of heaven belonged to them, as Mr. Tombes means. For he muſt mean a certaintie of appearance, or elſe he ſaith little to purpoſe. For federall right was an appearance in the old Teſtament. I have no liſt now to diſpute upon the faith, or confeſſion mentioned uſually at the baptizing of men by John Baptiſt, and ſome others: Their words ſhort and generall, that Chriſt was the Son of God; or that they were ſinners, and their affections cold, for any good fruits we can find that followed from moſt towards Chriſt all his life time, or to his diſciples, but many times bad; ſome called Diſciples falling off from Chriſt. Job. 6.66. Others ſuch, as though called beleevers, yet Chriſt would not commit himſelf to them, knowing what was in them. Joh. 2.23, 24, 25. Ananias, Saphira, and Simon Magus foully falling away anon after their baptiſme. But this I would fain know of the Anabaptiſts, all things conſidered, firſt, whether there be a rule in the New Teſtament, in ſo many words (as they require for infant baptiſme) touching baptizing people of ripe yeers, and injoyned upon them afore their baptiſme; as may put it out of doubt, or at leaſt make a cloſe ſpirituall diſcovery, that to them did belong the kingdom of heaven? Secondly, whether it be not as good an appearance that the kingdom of God belongs to the infants of a ſtanding profeſſor (manifeſting his faith by many ſpirituall experiences) becauſe it is ſaid by God, I am the God of thee, and thy ſeed (which I truſt Mr. T. will acknowledge to be true in the New Teſtament to beleeving parents to apply it to themſelves concerning their infants) as is that appearance that the kingdome of God belongs to a ſudden confeſſour of ripe yeers, that he is a ſinner, that Chriſt is the Son of God, that he deſires to be baptized, heard and ſeen by mans ſences but ſince yeſterday, or the day before, or a ſhort time ſince? I appeal to the generall practiſe of the Anabaptiſts in their re-baptizing, ſeriouſly to underſtand what I ſay. I know how ſome would heighten that generall confeſſion that Chriſt was the Son of God; from the oppoſition made againſt it in Chriſts time. But let them not forget that if this confeſſion by their grant went along with baptiſme, that then it was entertained as well as baptiſme. And the chief Prieſts and Elders of the people durſt not ſay Johns baptiſme was from men, For they feared the people *Matt. 21.25. Mar. 11.29., leſt the people ſhould ſtone them *Luk. 20.6.. The people were got to ſuch a head, as to hurl away fear of being baptized, according to the concomitants thereof: multitudes coming from all parts to be baptized, Matth. 3. none controuling, that we read, yea the Sadduces and Phariſees alſo offered themſelves to baptiſme, ibid. Matth. 3.7. And for Chriſt, the Rulers durſt not take him on the feaſt day for fear of an uprore among the people. Matth. 26.5. Adde to all, that at Johns baptizing the multitudes, there is no mention of any thing, but of confeſſing their ſins; and that they might do without any ſhew of danger of perſecution; and many wretched men may do, and have little right to the kingdom of God.
Again we anſwer to that Mr. T. ſpeaks, Secondly, thus.
1 That Mr. T. doth not ſtand to his expoſition of that ſentence, Of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven, not to ſignifie infants but humble men. For Mr. T. ſpeaks after, with an [if] if of ſuch be otherwiſe to be expounded, then ſo and ſo he anſwers. At que iter explorat. Mr. T. doth but try, which way he may go; which nay I will be driven.
2 Though we have ſaid much already*See before on our form of argument, on theſe texts, Matth. 19. Mar 10. Luk. 18. for proof that of ſuch muſt relate to the infants, yet we now adde this:
1 That of ſuch is the kingdom of God, is given as a reaſon why the diſciples ſhould ſuffer little children to come unto him; For (ſaith he) of ſuch is the kingdome of God. Now this would have been but a ſtrange peece of ſence from Chriſts mouth; ſuffer little children to come, &c. For heaven belongs to humble men of ripe yeers.
2 That therefore the reaſon may hold good, children muſt at leaſt be included in ſuch as a part.
3 That little children muſt be mainly included; becauſe theſe are propounded as the originall as it were; the humble men but the copie. Theſe men do but write after thoſe infants as their ſample or pattern.
Obj. But Mr. T. ſaith, Chriſt expounds the word ſuch, Mar. 10.15. Luk. 18.17. of men who in humilitie of mind are little children.
Anſ. Mr. T. muſt not call Chriſts occaſionall diſcourſes, and alluſions, expoſitions. See Luk. 14.15. For at a civill feaſt he takes occaſion to ſpeak of a ſpirituall eating in the kingdom of heaven; yet this is not the expoſition of that. A multitude of like inſtances might be given. So when Chriſt ſaith here, Mar. 10.15. Whoſoever ſhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe, ſhall not enter therein. It is ſpoken occaſionall, as in a parentheſis, which may be left out, and the ſence of the ſtory of bleſſing the little children, as to whom heaven did belong, ſtand full and perfect. Or as that which may be put laſt, as done laſt after Chriſts whole ſpeech and action to the little ones, and ſo it is put laſt, Luk. 18.17. ſpoken by Chriſt to quip thoſe that kept off the little ones from Chriſt (as eſteeming them, or the motion of bringing them to Chriſt, contemptible) as if Chriſt ſaid to them, you had need look to your ſelves that ye be ſo happy as little children, &c. By all which it appears that this ſpeech about men is not of the body, or ſubſtance of the ſolemnitie of bleſſing the little ones, or of the doctrine why they ſhould be permitted to be brought to Chriſt, but is onelyonly a circumſtance, and cauſe made to the ſtanders by. As for Mat. 18.3, 4. there is not a tittle of Chriſts bleſſing little ones; but the pride of the diſciples occaſioning Chriſt to ſet a childe before them for a text, out of which to preach humilitie to them.
Obj. But leſt this expoſition of ſuch, that is, humble men, ſhould not ſtand firm, but fall before ſome ſuch reaſons as we have given, Mr. T. provides another expoſition: That of ſuch muſt not ſignifie all infants of beleevers, but onelyonly them whom he bleſſed, and thoſe perſons who either are ſo bleſſed, or are converted and humble as little children.
Anſw.
1. Chriſt doth not ſay, foreign of theſe, but foreign, of ſuch.
2 Chriſt ſpeaks indefinitely; who ſhall preſume to reſtrain him with Ifs and Ands? The Apoſtle ſaith, Act. 2. more preciſely to you are the promiſes; yet may not we apply that to us, when we are pincht in heart for ſin? being whatſoever things were written afore, (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, Rom. 15.4.) were written for our inſtruction, or learning, that we through patience and COMFORT of the Scriptures might have HOPE, for us and ours.
3 What ever perſons elſe this may be extended to, by Mr. Tombes, that doth not exclude other beleevers infants. Poſitâ una affiematione, &c. one affirmative doth not take away another.
For Mr. Tombes his denying major or minor, we leave the Reader to judge by that which hath been ſaid. Thoſe on whom Chriſt layed his hands, muſt be ſuppoſed to have been baptized afore. Or if Mr. Tombes could evince they were not, contrary to the cuſtome of the Scriptures; yet they muſt be as fit or more fit for baptiſme then impoſition.