Truth and Peace, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. Anſwereth the Doctor's ſecond Queſtion; Whether Infants are excluded from Baptiſm?
AND here in the firſt place (ſaith the Doctor) I muſt obſerve that the Queſtion ought to be propoſed in theſe Terms, and not whether Chriſt hath commanded Infants to be baptized? For as a good, Author obſerves of the River Nile▪ we ought not to ask the Reaſon why Nile overflows ſo many days about the Summer Solſtice? But why it doth not overflow all the Year long?
But by his Favour he is as wife a Man that asks the firſt Queſtion, as he that asks the ſecond. And I know but one Anſwer to be given to both, and that is chiefly and before all things▪ It is the Will of God to order it ſo. Now let this be apply'd to the caſe in hand; And the Will of God ſhall determine, who are, and who are not to be baptized▪
And let the Doctor here reſolve me, whether God excluded Infants of 6 or 7 days old from Circumciſion, when yet there is no negative Law, you ſhall not circumciſe them; and he will ſoon anſwer his own Queſtion: For his Anſwer muſt be, ſeeing God did not appoint Infants of 7 days old to be circumciſed, therefore he did not admit them to it; and our Anſwer is the ſame, Chriſt did not command to baptize Infants, therefore he does not admit them to it. And it is obſerved by ſome learned Men, that tho Negative Commands do uſually exclude, yet it is alſo true that an Inſtitution of God, and an affirmative Command does exclude all that is above or beſides that Command and Inſtitution. And they bring Levit. 10. 1, 2, to juſtify what they ſay: For Nadab and Abihu came to a diſmal end. And ſaith Diodate, Though the Command was not given before, yet it was a Sin, in undertaking the contrary before God's mind was known. And ſo may the Doctor find the ſame Acceptance, in going where he has no Law to direct him, though there were no negative to forbid him; however we dare not follow him becauſe we fear the Lord, who if we add to his Word, will reprove both him and us, Prov. 30. 6.
But here again the Doctor would build his Infant-Baptiſm upon that Jewiſh Tradition of baptizing the Infants of Proſelytes, though he knows they had no Authority from Heaven for it. And we have ſhewed from a learned Author in chap. 2. that it's very probable there was no ſuch thing. And it's very ſtrange that the Doctor or others ſhould ſuffer themſelves to be thus deluded from the Simplicity of the Goſpel by the Jews Talmud, which the Learned Buxtorf explodes with ſuch Indignation; Whence (ſaith he) was the Talmud ſent to us, that from thence we ſhould think that the Law of Moſes either can or ought to be underſtood, much leſs the Goſpel, which they were prefeſſed Enemies unto?
And yet now this is become one of the chief Refuges of this Doctor, and of Dr. Hammond before him, for the Support of Infant-Baptiſm. And it's ſtrange that the Doctor ſhould hope by ſuch Arguments to bring any Credit to the cauſe of Infant Baptiſm. He might as well have referred us to the Turkiſh Alcoran, where divers Waſhings are alſo mentioned.
Page 32, 33. Upon this tottering Foundation the Doctor builds divers Suppoſitions; as firſt, That if Chriſt had not changed the Seal of the Covenant, but had ſaid, Go make all Nations my Diſciples, circumciſing them; I appeal (ſaith he) to any impartial Mans Judgment, whether the Apoſtles would not have preſumed, that it was Chriſts Intention that the Infants of adult Proſelites ſhould be circumciſed? And in a Word (ſaith he) there lay no Obligation upon our Bleſſed Lord to lay aſide the Practice of Infant Baptiſm, as being inconſiſtent either with the free or manly, or univerſal Nature of the Chriſtian Church. I anſwer,
1. The caſe which the Doctor puts is not at all rational, but upon this Preſuppoſition that the Diſciples had known the Law before given to Iſrael, and their Practice in that caſe: but they knew no ſuch Law to have been given to any Nation in the caſe of Baptiſm, ſo that they muſt only keep to the Words of their Commiſſion, and the Practice of their Maſter, who made and baptized Diſciples, and none elſe, John 4. 1.
2. I muſt needs tell the Doctor that Chriſt was obliged to diſapprove and make void the Cuſtom of the Jews in baptizing Infants, (if they did ſo) ſeeing it was but their own Tradition; and that from the Tenor of his own Doctrine, Matth. 15. 9. Mark 7. In vain do ye worſhip me; teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. For it was their divers Traditional Waſhings which he was here oppoſing. And ſeeing the Doctor grants their Infant Baptiſm was but a humane Inſtitution▪ the Phariſees might have replied to our Saviour, Why doſt thou reprove our Waſhings? Doſt not thou alſo allow the Doctrine of Men in the caſe of Infant-Baptiſm? Teacheſt thou another, and teacheſt not thy ſelf? And now the Doctor's Suppoſitions will tumble down of themſelves; for ſeeing the Apoſtles knew no ſuch Practice, as baptizing Infants by God's Appointment in the Jewiſh Church, and they having heard their Maſter condemn all Waſhings in Religion founded only on humane Authority, as being but vain Worſhip; and now receiving no Commandment (as the Doctor muſt alſo confeſs) to baptize Infants, Matth. 28. 20. they were ſufficiently forbidden to baptize any Infants by Chriſt's ſevere Cenſure againſt the Jews for worſhipping God after their own Tradition.
And therefore though the Doctor thinks he has given ſome reaſon why he ſtated the Queſtion, as you have heard, yet I humbly tell him he was therein very unreaſonable, in that he would beg the whole Controverſy, whilſt he will ſuppoſe, nay conclude, that Infant-Baptiſm had been the immemorial Practice of the Jewiſh Church, and approved, or not cenſured by our Saviour. And then indeed if this were true, his Suppoſitions might beguile a wiſer Man than I am: But all this being meer ſophiſtical, beggarly and preſumptuous Inſinuations, it is to me a great Evidence againſt Infant-Baptiſm.
But now the Doctor (p. 34▪ 35.) will ſhew that Matth. 28. 19. Mark▪ 16. 16. Heb. 6. 1, 2. does not ſo much as conſequentially prohibit Infant-Baptiſm. And becauſe we think theſe places do evidently ſhew that Chriſt in the two firſt could not impoſe any ſuch thing upon his Apoſtles, as to teach Infants, and ſo not to baptize them, becauſe all that he commands them to baptize, he commands them firſt to teach, or preach the Goſpel to them. And Heb. 6. 1, 2. ſhews very plainly that Baptiſm does not go before, but follows Repentance and Faith, and therefore cannot with any ſhew of Truth or Reaſon from hence belong to Infants, but the contrary. I fay, becauſe we thus think and teach from theſe Scriptures, the Doctor ſays, we are grievouſly miſtaken, becauſe theſe and the like Texts do of themſelves no more prove that grown Perſons are the only Subjects of Baptiſm, than the Words of the Apoſtle, 2 Theſſ. 3. 10. proves that grown Perſons only are to eat. From whence in their ſophiſtical way it may be argued thus, It belongs only to grown Perſons to eat, becauſe the Apoſtle requires that Perſons who eat ſhould firſt work. But I reply;
The Doctor does here greatly wrong both the Apoſtle and us: 1. The Apoſtle does not ſay, Any that does not work ſhall not eat, for he knew that grown Perſons who are ſick and weak as well as Infants, cannot work. But he ſays, If any would not work, theſe only are they who ſhall not eat, i. e. ſuch as are able, and yet being idle, would not work. Is this fair for the Doctor to pervert the Words of the Text? 2. He abuſes us, for we do not baptize any grown Perſons meerly as ſuch. No, all that we baptize are (or at leaſt profeſs to be) newborn Babes in Chriſt. Now our Saviour deſigning Baptiſm to be the Laver of Regeneration, muſt needs prohibit thoſe of whoſe Regeneration no Judgment can be made, nor Demonſtration given by any Man whatſoever▪ Surely the Doctor has little reaſon to talk of his diſcovering the fallaciouſneſs of our Arguing. But he ſays, he will further ſhew the Weakneſs and Fallacy of our Argument: Let us hear him do that.
Suppoſe (ſaith the Doctor) there were a great Plague in any Country, and God ſhould miraculouſly call an eleven or twelve Men, and communicate to them a certain Medicine againſt this Plague; and ſay unto them, Go into ſuch a Country, and call the People together, and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine, and aſſure them, that he that believeth and taketh it from you, ſhall live; but he that believeth not, ſhall die. Ʋpon this Suppoſition I demand of theſe Diſſenters, if the words of ſuch Commiſſion would be ſufficient—to conclude that it was God's intention that they ſhould adminiſter his revealed Medicine to none but grown Perſons, becauſe they only could be called together, and taught the Virtues of it, and believe or disbelieve them that brought it. No certainly this way of arguing would not be admitted by any rational Man, &c. I anſwer;
This Similitude is very fallacious and deceitful, ſuppoſing what is not to be ſuppoſed in our Caſe, no, I think not in the Doctor's own Judgment. For 1ſt. no Infant is under the Diſeaſe or Plague here meant or intended by the Similitude. For ſeeing Chriſt has taken off their original Pollution, they are juſt Perſons that need no Repentance, they are to be diſtinguiſhed from Infidels, Whoremongers, Drunkards, Swearers, Idolaters, ſuperſtitious and erroneous Worſhippers. The Plague of Unbelief cannot ſeize them, therefore the Medicine of Faith is not applied to them. The Diſeaſe of tranſgreſſing the Laws is not upon them, Rom. 4. 15. therefore they have not the Medicine of Repentance appointed to them, and conſequently not the Baptiſm of Repentance.
Secondly, This Similitude ſuppoſes Infants cannot be cured of the Diſeaſe they are under without Baptiſm, which is ſo contrary to Truth and to Proteſtant Doctrine, that it is to be exploded. And thus we ſee this Flouriſh, about which he ſpends two or three Pages, to the amuſing his credulous Admirers, comes to nothing at all. For no ſooner is it looked into, but it vaniſheth as a Dream when one awaketh. Even ſo, Lord, ſhalt thou deſpiſe this falſe Image of the Goſpel, and all that are like unto it.
And like unto this is the next following, p. 36. For tho it be true that conſidering the previous Law of Circumciſion, Gen. 17. it is not to be doubted but that David or Solomon would both obſerve it in any Commiſſion which they might give to propagate it. But what is all this to the purpoſe? Where is the previous Law that commanded Infants to be baptized? And ſuch a Law as muſt be ſuppoſed according to the Similitude, to oblige our David and Solomon, even Chriſt himſelf to obſerve it? Where (I ſay) is this Law to be found? Not in the Word of God, the Doctor confeſſes that: Where then? why in the Talmud, the Gemara, &c. Very well. But then this wretched Talmud was not finiſhed in our Saviour's days, but 500 years after, and ſo could be no Rule to him: nor in the time of his Apoſtles, and ſo could be no Rule to them, and therefore I hope it ſhall never be a Rule to us.
The Doctor, p. 38. ſays, we put the greateſt ſtreſs upon Mark 16. 16. But it is plain (ſaith he) that the believing and not believing in that Text, is only to be underſtood of ſuch as are capable of hearing and believing the Goſpel. Now as this is very true, and therefore Infants may and ſhall be ſaved without believing; ſo it is as true alſo, that Infants are not concern'd in the Duty of Baptiſm here mentioned, but may and ſhall be ſaved without that alſo.
And as the Doctor tells us, he has proceeded thus far to ſhew how inconcluſively and abſurdly we argue, &c. ſo I have proceeded thus far too, to ſhew how little Truth or Reaſon he has uſed to convict our Arguments of Weakneſs. But he adds, So weak are all the Arguments of the Anabaptiſts, by which they endeavour from Scripture to prove that Chriſt hath limited the Subjects of Baptiſm to grown Perſons, &c. Even ſo I reply, that our weak Arguments are too ſtrong to be overthrown by ſuch impertinent Similitudes as the Doctor has brought againſt them. And for Scripture, as he has none, ſo he has brought none, but 2 Theſſ. 3. 10. which he has alſo very much perverted, as he doth alſo the Arguments uſed by us.
Here the Doctor (p. 39, 40.) is pleaſed to ſay, That Infant Baptiſm is ſo univerſal and ancient a Practice, that no body knows when and where it began; or how not being, it came to be the Practice of the Church, ſince there was never any Church Ancient or Modern, which did not practiſe it, it muſt argue a ſtrange Partiality to think that it could be any leſs than an Apoſtolical Practice and Tradition. And he brings Tertullian ſaying, Had the Churches erred, they would have varied, but what is one and the ſame amongſt them all, proceeds not from Error, but Tradition.
Here the Doctor has left his Jewiſh Fort, and takes Sanctuary in Apoſtolical Tradition; and indeed, the wiſeſt Man that aſſerts this Scriptureleſs Practice, is at a loſs where to fix it. Nay, the Doctor now tells us plainly, That no Body knows when, and how, and where Infant-Baptiſm came in. And we tell him as plainly, that this is a ſign that it is an Error, and came in privily, ſtealing by degrees upon the Churches, as falſe Teachers are ſaid to do, Gal. 2. 4. But now if the Doctor will ſtand to Tertullian's Rule, we ſhall ſoon prove that Infant-Baptiſm is an Error. For,
1. All Churches have not held or practiſed it; no, not ſo much as one Church mentioned in the Holy Scripture, or during the Apoſtles Days. The Mother Church at Jeruſalem knew no ſuch practice, for non apparentibus, &c. that which appears not, is not. It's eaſy for the Doctor to ſay, all Churches held it, but it's impoſſible for him to prove it. He confeſſes, no Body knows when it came in, nor how, nor where; and why then might there not be true Churches before it came in, even in his own Judgment, and then all Churches have not held it.
2. But now this is our Argument from Tertul. If the Churches varied about Infant Baptiſm, then they erred in it: But they varied about it, ergo they erred in it. The Major the Doctor muſt not deny, becauſe it's become his own; The Minor I ſhall prove preſently; firſt, in Tertullian himſelf, for he was not always the ſame, even as he is quoted by the Doctor, p. 41. for firſt he brings him in ſaying, Pro cujuſ que perſonae conditione, ac diſpoſitione, etiam aetate cunctatio Baptiſmo utilior eſt, praecipue tamen circa parvulos, &c. It ſeems then, that tho he ſpeaks favourably of it afterwards; yet he thought the delay of Baptiſm, ESPECIALLY FOR LITTLE CHILDREN, to be more profitable. And this alſo was the Opinion of Nazianzen: Theſe two great Men, who are (at leaſt the firſt of them) as early Witneſſes of Infant-Baptiſm creeping into the Church, as can juſtly be named, ſhewing ſo much doubfulneſs about baptizing Infants, is a great ſign it had no Authority from Chriſt and his Apoſtles; for what were theſe Men to teach to delay it, if Chriſt had commanded it? And yet ſo they did expreſly teach, as the words quoted out of Tertullian by the Doctor do farther ſhew, becauſe it was his preſent Opinion, That, cun…tatio Baptiſmi praecipue circa parvulos was utilior. He anſwers, Venient dum adoleſcunt, venient dum diſcunt, dum quo veniant docentur. Yea, he further ſaith, Fiant Chriſtiani quum Chriſtum noſſe potuerint; but this the Doctor left out. And if after this he altered his Judgment, as the Doctor ſuppoſes, (though ſome Learned Men think otherwiſe) it ſhews, that he was contrary to himſelf in this thing.
Now that whole Churches varied about it, whether we reſpect the Infant Subject, or the alteration of Dipping to Sprinkling, has been abundantly made evident by many; ſo that I ſhall content my ſelf with an Inſtance or two out of the Learned Du-Veil, who from Grotius on Mat. 19. 13. gives this account: That according to the Rule of Scripture, and agreeing with Reaſon it ſelf, the moſt part of the Greeks in all Ages, even unto this Day, retain a Cuſtom of delaying Infant Baptiſm, till they themſelves can give a Confeſſion of their Faith. He alſo brings Nazianzen, in his 40th Oration, treating of thoſe to whom Baptiſm was not adminiſtred BY REASON OF INFANCY. And it is certain, that Nazianzen himſelf, though the Son of a Chriſtian Biſhop, about the 4th Century, and bred up in the Chriſtian Religion, was not baptized till he was about thirty Years of Age. The ſame is alſo true of Chryſoſtom, Hierom, Ambroſe, Auſtin, and others. And hence (ſaith he) it does manifeſtly appear, That the wiſeſt of our Fathers in Chriſt did not come to Baptiſm, until they were come to a ſtrong and confirmed Age and Wit. Note here, the wiſeſt of our Fathers were not baptized in Infancy; you may be ſure then, that the Churches did vary about it. I could never read of ſo much as one of the Ancient Fathers, for ſix hundred Years after Chriſt, that was baptized in his Infancy.
The Learned Curcelaeus, as quoted by Du-Veil, affirms, That the Cuſtom of baptizing Infants, was brought in without the Commandment of Chriſt, and did not begin before the Third Age. And the Cuſtom of it being brought in, was much more frequent in Africa than in Aſia, and with far greater opinion of Neceſſity. This muſt needs ſatisfy, that the Churches did vary about Infant-Baptiſm at its firſt creeping into the Church. And how Chriſtians have varied one from another becauſe of it, is apparent in all Ages and Nations almoſt ever ſince it had a being, has been very largely evidenced, by the care and induſtry of Mr. Danvers and others: And, I think, this preſent Age may ſpeak for it ſelf, that there are very many Chriſtians, and Churches too, who vary about this Matter. Therefore after the Doctor's Rule from Tertullian, they have, and do err in this Matter on the one hand, or on the other.
As the Alteration of the Subject, ſo the Alteration of the manner of the Adminiſtration, has cauſed great diſcord among Chriſtians. How Offenſive it was to uſe Sprinkling (which it ſhould ſeem ſome were labouring to introduce) in the Year 816, may be gathered from the Synod of Celicyth, who gave ſtrict Order to Dip, and not to Sprinkle; Let the Presbyters beware, that when they Adminiſter the Sacrament of Baptiſm, they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Children, but let them be always plunged in the Font, according to the Example of the Son of God. But directly contrary hereunto, our Engliſh Synod, in their Rubrick, do order the Presbyters to Sprinkle, in caſe the Child be weak; and ever ſince they were all weak that were brought to be Baptized, for they do nothing but Sprinkle. And ſo pernicious is this Alteration, that the Muſcovites, and others, do now deny the Latins, and other Weſtern Countries, to be rightly Baptized, becauſe they have changed the manner from Dipping to Sprinkling.
I might enlarge my Teſtimonies of this kind out of the Learned Du-Veil and others. And yet the Doctor would perſwade the World, the Churches have not varied about this Matter. Nor need the Doctor wonder that none of the Writers in the firſt Age of Chriſtianity, are found to detect the baptizing of Infants, ſeeing there are none that yet appear in that Age to have held any ſuch Thing. And Dr. Barlow has given Teſtimony, That there is no juſt Evidence of Infant-Baptiſm till about two hundred Years after Chriſt. The Diſſenters therefore are not unreaſonable (as the Doctor would have them) in charging thoſe that have altered, or that approve the Alterations thus made in the Caſe of Sacred Baptiſm, with Apoſtacy, or falling from the ſimplicity of the Goſpel, at leaſt in this▪ that they have now no true Baptiſm.
I freely grant, (ſaith the Doctor) That no Arguments are equal to the Scriptures, when the Interpretations of them are not doubtful. And certainly the Texts which concerns the Subject and manner of Baptiſm, are none of the Scriptures whoſe Interpretations are doubtful, becauſe it did not comport with the Wiſdom of Chriſt that they ſhould be ſo. Certainly the Rule which God gave about Circumciſion was plain enough; And ſhall we think our Saviour did leave us to Ambiguities to guide us, in admitting his People to Church-Priviledges? What then can we ſuppoſe to be plain? This very thing then that the Paedobaptiſts are conſtrain'd to confeſs, (as Mr. Baxter and others) that it's a very difficult thing to prove Infant-Baptiſm, and that (as the Doctor here) the Scriptures which are brought for it are not plain, for if they were, he confeſſes no Arguments are like them; but being not clear for Infant-Baptiſm, tho as clear as the Sun for Believers Baptiſm, therefore he flies to the harmonious practice of the Ancient Churches, and the undivided conſent of the Apoſtolical Fathers as authentical Interpreters, &c. But theſe are mere flouriſhes, there has been no ſuch Harmony, nor ſuch undividedneſs among Churches and Fathers in this Matter, as we have ſhewed.
He brings many Paſſages out of Authors Ancient and Modern; but theſe, eſpecially the moſt Ancient of them, have been ſo effectually ſcan'd by many Learned Pens of thoſe of our Way, as Tombs▪ Fiſher, Blackwood, Danvers, Den, Du-Veil, and others, that it's needleſs to do more. I ſhall rather endeavour to quiet the Clamour about Fathers, Ancient Churches, &c. as if all muſt be determined by their Sentences, by preſenting the Reader with that grave Speech of Lactantius, one of theſe Fathers themſelves, by which it will appear▪ that this Clamour is unreaſonable. Thus he ſpeaks, Lib. 2. c. 8. Div. Inſtit. Dedit omnibus Deus pro virili portione ſapientiam, &c. God hath given Wiſdom unto all Men, according to a competent meaſure, that they may both find out Things unheard of before, and weigh Things already found out. Neither becauſe they had the ſtart of us in Time, doth it likewiſe follow that they have it alſo in Wiſdom; which if it be indifferently granted to all, it cannot be foreſtalled by them which went before. It is unimparable, like the Light and Brightneſs of the Sun, it being the Light of Man's Heart, as the Sun is of the Eyes. Sythence then to be Wiſe, that is, to ſearch the Truth, is a Diſpoſition imbred in every Man, they debar themſelves of Wiſdom, who, without any examination, approve the Invention of their Anceſtors. But this is that which deceives them, they, like unreaſonable Creatures, are wholly led by others; the Name of Anceſtors being once ſet in the Front, they think it cannot be, that either themſelves ſhould be wiſer, becauſe they are called Punies; or that the other ſhould be in any thing miſtaken, becauſe they are called Anceſtors.
So that if the Doctor had quoted more of the Ancients than he has done, yet ſo long as we have the higheſt Authorities, the Holy Scriptures, and the Reaſon of Men, as well as the Ancients, we can only follow them, as we ſee or know they follow Chriſt. And more than this St. Paul does not require of us. The Ancient Fathers (ſaith the Doctor) undoubtedly had well read and conſidered the Hiſtory of Baptiſm in the Acts of the Apoſtles, but never drew ſuch abſurd Conſequences from them, &c. And did they not as well read the Hiſtory of Communion in the Acts of the Apoſtles; and yet drew theſe abſurd Conſequences for 600 Years together, that Infants ſhould be communicated. But to this the Doctor tells us,
That God might ſuffer all the Church to fall into ſuch a harmleſs Practice as that of Infant-Communion; or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious Fondneſs of the People, as we do, ſaith he, in bringing them to Prayers. Now as this may be well gueſſed, ſo we likewiſe may conjecture, and it's not improbable but Infant-Baptiſm came ſtealing ſo too upon the Churches at the firſt; but after theſe Errors had got root, they were both defended by the Fathers as if they had been Oracles drop'd from Heaven. And ſuch a Neceſſity laid upon them, as if Infants could not be ſaved without them. Thus did Auguſtine teach, both concerning Infant-Baptiſm, and Infant-Communion.
The Doctor demands, What account can rationally be given why the Jewiſh Chriſtians who were offended at the neglect of Circumciſion, ſhould not have been much more offended, if the Apoſtles had refuſed to initiate Infants under the new Teſtament? But we may with more reaſon demand of the Doctor, ſeeing the Jews were ſo offended at the Neglect of Circumciſion, why did not the Apoſtles quiet this diſcontented People by telling them, you need not be offended, ſeeing inſtead of Infant-Circumciſion you have now Infant-Baptiſm? and if indeed there had been any ſuch thing, it had been the moſt pertinent means to quiet them, to refer them to that for Satisfaction. But ſeeing the Apoſtles make no uſe of this Argument, it's clear they had no ſuch thing to argue from, for where they could uſe it, they did, as in the caſe of baptized Believers themſelves, Coloſſ. 2. 11. which is a ſufficient Argument that Infant-Baptiſm had no being in the Church in St. Paul's time, ſeeing he never mentions it at all, no not then when he had the greateſt occaſion for it that could be given.
The Doctor obſerves, that the Jews always looked upon the Children of Pagans as common or unclean; but upon their own as ſeparate and Holy. And then he tells us, that St. Paul makes the ſame Diſtinction between them, 1 Cor. 7. 14. But this is ſo expreſly againſt the Word of God, that I admire the Doctor ſhould write it, was not this Diſtinction between Jew and Gentile, the one being common and unclean, the other Holy, taken quite away. Acts 10. 15, 18. What God hath cleanſed, call not thou common: which the Apoſtle expounds thus, ver. 28. God hath ſhewed me that I ſhould not call any Man common or unclean. And why ſhould the Doctor ſo much as think that St. Paul ſhould count the Infants of Jews or Gentiles which do not yet believe, common and unclean: The Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſays not a Word to that Purpoſe; but is an Anſwer to the Scruple which ſome Chriſtians had about continuing in Marriage-Union with their Yoke-Fellows, who were Unbelievers, ſuppoſing them to be unclean; but St. Paul perſwades them to continue in that Relation, for that they were both ſanctified to that Relation of Husband and Wife, elſe ſaith he, your Children were unclean. Now this Text is greatly abuſed by Poedobaptiſts, and the learned Muſcullus, who had abuſed this Text as they do, at laſt did confeſs as much. Now this place Acts 10. 15, 18, 28. does ſo fully explain St. Paul, that no Man can with any ſhew of Truth or Reaſon make a Diſtinction between a Chriſtian's Infant, and the Infant of an Indian, to call the one common and unclean, the other ſeparate and Holy; for if we may call no Man (as ſuch) common and unclean, much leſs may we call an Infant ſo. If they be born according to the Law of God, they are called by the Prophet Malachi a Seed of God, chap. 2. v. 15.
And though this Mercy of God towards all Infants equally, might perhaps gaul the Jews, as it does the Doctor and his party, yet it's Evangelical Doctrine, and ſhews evidently that God is no Reſpecter of Perſons; and Infants being all equally the ſame, as Objects of his Pity, he deſpiſes none of theſe little ones: The innocent Babes in Nineveh were as dear to him, as the innocent Babes in the Land of Iſrael: and yet for all this it is certain that the Children of faithful Men have many Bleſſings, which the Children of evil Men have not; being Children of many Prayers, and under early Advantages to know the Lord, and to cut ſhort the Days of Iniquity: whilſt on the other ſide the Children of Unbelievers are in danger by an evil Education to be kept from the Truth▪ and brought up in Error, and as ſuch they (as their Fathers for the ſame cauſe) become defiled, not by Birth, but by Sin, Tit. 1. 15. For as born according to God's Ordinance, they are his Offspring, Acts 17. 28. and ſo Holy. And to this agrees the Sentence of Muſcullus, Ʋnleſs Marriage were Holy and clean, even between Ʋnbelievers; what other thing would follow, than that all the Children are Baſtards and unclean? But far be it from us to ſay ſo; they are Holy, for they are born of lawful Marriage.