Light Broke Forth in Wales Expelling Darkness, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
In Anſwer to Mr. James Owen's ſeventh Chapter: proving that the Children of the Faithful ought not to be baptized, becauſe they are ſaid to be holy; wherein 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined, and clearly explained, with the ſenſe of many learned Men, both Pedo-baptiſts and others, on the ſaid Text.
MR. James Owen thus begins in his ſeventh Chapter, viz. If the Children of the Faithful are holy, then Baptiſm appertaineth unto them; for all confeſs that Holineſs gives Right to Baptiſm, if they allow that Faith gives Right, which is the Root of Holineſs in the Adult.
Anſw. We do deny that Holineſs (I mean true Goſpel-Holineſs) ſimply in it ſelf, without Chriſt's Command, gives right to Baptiſm. No, Sir, you go too faſt; Holineſs did not give right to Circumciſion, but the meer poſitive Command of God to Abraham: for if it did, Lot, Job, &c. had as much right to Circumciſion, and their Male Infants, as Abraham and his Male Infants; but that Holineſs gave no right to Circumciſion, ſimply conſidered in it ſelf, appears, becauſe, as I have before ſhewed, all the Male Infants of thoſe wicked Perſons that ſprang from Abraham's Loins by Natural Generation, had as undoubted right to Circumciſion, by virtue of God's Command to Abraham, as had thoſe holy Mens Male Children that were of his Natural Seed. Moreover, 'tis neither Faith, the Seed, nor Holineſs the Fruit, that gives right to Baptiſm, ſimply conſidered, but the poſitive Command of Jeſus Chriſt, which, I affirm, indeed runs to ſuch who have Faith, Repentance, and true actual Holineſs, but not a Civil or Matrimonial Holineſs, as this is of which the Apoſtle ſpeaks, 1 Cor. 7. 14. as will appear by and by; Elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.
But how will it appear that they (i. e. that Children) are holy, ſay you? the Holy Ghoſt ſaith ſo in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. The Apoſtle in theſe words, ſay you, anſwereth a Queſtion propoſed by the believing Corinthians, Whether it was lawful for them to live in the State of Matrimony with thoſe that were Infidels? they queſtioned this not without Cauſe, becauſe Ezra commanded both the Idolatrous Wives and Children to be caſt off, Ezra 9. 1, 2, 3, 4. Paul, ſay you, anſwereth, that they ought not to do the like; becauſe the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by the believing Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is ſanctified by the believing Husband.
2. You ſay that Children born in ſuch a State are holy, as if both were believing; and this you deny to be Legitimation, or not being Baſtards, but that it is a Federal or Covenant-Holineſs. Such that were not in God's Covenant you intimate were unclean, Iſa. 52. 1.
Anſw. 1. Prove your Infants, as ſuch, are in the Covenant of Grace. We deny not but all Elect Infants are decretively in that Covenant; but are your Infants, or Infants of the Faithful, as ſuch, in the Covenant of Grace? If not, they are not in this ſenſe holy.
2. Are there not many Children of Unbelievers elected? If ſo, are they not holy alſo? and if ſo, why not baptized as well as your Infants, by your Argument from hence?
3. Prove, when you write again, if you can, that there is any External, Relative, Federal Holineſs of Perſons or of Things in the times of the Goſpel, as there was under the Law; we deny it. I affirm all External, Relative and Federal Holineſs was but a Ceremonial Typical Holineſs; and will you bring in Ceremonial Relative Holineſs into the Goſpel Church? The Gentiles and their Children being not circumciſed under the Law, we grant, were in that ſenſe unclean: But will you call all Unbelievers Children unclean now; for the Unbelievers Children you deny to be Subjects of Baptiſm.
You ſay they are unclean that are excluded from the Privileges of the Church of God, it was not for any unclean Perſon to come into the Congregation, altho, ſay you, their Uncleanneſs was but Ceremonial.
Anſw. Sir, God ſhewed Peter that Jews and Gentiles are now all one in Goſpel-times: Circumciſion nor Uncircumciſion renders Perſons clean or unclean. None now are cleanſed or accounted clean, but ſuch who believe, or have Faith in Chriſt. All that you ſay about unclean Perſons, and things under the Law, ſignifies nothing to the purpoſe in hand, becauſe the Holineſs under the Law was either Ceremonial or Typical, which none can or dare plead for under the Goſpel-Diſpenſation, ſeeing the Subſtance and Antitype is now come.
1. Now in Goſpel-times there is no Ceremonial Uncleanneſs of Perſons; and therefore in that reſpect no Holineſs of Perſons. The Leper was unclean, and he that touch'd a dead Corps was unclean, &c. Swines Fleſh was unclean, and many other Beaſts, that are not ſo now. The Firſt-born was holy then, but not ſo now.
2. There was Pollution or Uncleanneſs of Places; the Houſe of a Leper was unclean, and his Garments unclean. So there was Holineſs of Places, the Sanctuary was holy, the Temple was holy, which were either by external Conſecration, or typically ſo: But now there is no Place ſo unclean nor holy. In Goſpel-times there's no ſuch Conſecration of Places, Perſons or Things.
3. Veſſels were unclean, and Veſſels were holy, but not ſo under this Diſpenſation.
4. All the whole Houſe of Iſrael was holy by way of Legal Separation, or Conſecration to the Lord, tho they were wicked Perſons in reſpect of Spiritual Sanctification; but no Member of the Goſpel-Church that is a falſe Profeſſor, is accounted holy, or called holy by the Lord, holy now, becauſe not allowed by the Goſpel to be a Member. They are not conſecrated to the Lord, or ſet apart as Members of a Congregational Church under the Goſpel, tho ſuch were, if Iſraelites, and of the Jewiſh Church, called holy by the Lord. Then theſe things being ſo, as indeed and in truth it is acknowledged to be, and that by our Godly Brethren, whether Presbyterians or Independants, what is become of your Expoſition of this Text?
You ſay, little Children are unclean by reaſon of natural Corruption, but by God's Covenant and waſhing with Water, &c. they ſhall be clean.
Anſw. 1. True, all that are born of Women are ſpiritually polluted; and no doubt but ſuch Infants that die, who are ſaved, God doth, through the Blood of Chriſt, ſanctify them in ſome myſterious way not known to us, but not by Baptiſm. Prove that Baptiſm waſhes away Sin either in old or young if you can; Who dares to affirm that, when Peter ſaith Baptiſm waſheth not away Sin, or the ſpiritual Filthineſs of the Fleſh? 1 Pet. 3. 21.
2. If God in a Covenant-way by Baptiſm waſheth away the Uncleanneſs of your Infants, then they were not holy or clean by being born of believing Parents; and if holy becauſe they are their Seed, then no need of Baptiſm to waſh them.
3. And how come they to loſe that Holineſs afterwards, or is it only the Defilement or Uncleanneſs of Actual Sin that lies upon your Children who are polluted, when grown up? for if Baptiſm waſhes away any Corruption of Sin in your Infants, 'tis Original Corruption; and doth that return again to them afterwards, ſo as to be charged upon them? All Sin in true ſanctified Perſons by Faith in Chriſt's Blood is waſhed away, and pardoned, as touching the Guilt and Filth thereof, and ſhall never ſo return as to be charged upon them to their Condemnation. Is it thus with your baptized Infants in reſpect of Original Sin? Speak, Sir, your Mind freely the next time; for, God willing, I ſhall be ready for you. O when will you ceaſe to corrupt the Word of God by your Tradition!
You ſay, Mr. Tombs ſaith, If Children are Members of the viſible Church, they ought to be baptized.
I do not remember Mr. Tombs ſaith ſo, and if they are Members of the viſible Church before baptized, they cannot be made Members by Baptiſm. 'Tis abſurd to ſay to a Man, Come into this Houſe; or to ſay, Bring ſuch a Child into the Houſe, that is in it before.
For Baptiſm, ſay you, is the Door through which we come into the Church of God: Thoſe that ſay they are not Members of the Church of God, ought, you ſay, to ſhew us a plain Scripture for their caſting out, if they can, of one Church ſince Adam until this latter Age, of which little Children were Members, &c. And again, you ſay, if they were caſt out, how comes it to paſs that there is not one word in Scripture mentioned of it? call for a Scripture from thoſe that would ſhake your Faith concerning this Prerogative.
Anſw. 1. I have anſwered this already. We ſay and prove that Infants were never received at all into the Goſpel-Church, therefore cannot be ſaid to be caſt out of it.
2. We deny what you affirm without any Proof, viz. That Infants were always Members of the Viſible Church ſince Adam: Prove, if you can, they were received as Members before that Typical Church-ſtate which was conſtituted in Abraham's Family.
3. The Firſt-born of Iſrael were holy, the Prieſts Sons had a right to the Miniſtery, or Prieſthood; ſhew when they were caſt out, and loſt both thoſe Prerogatives: and that very way you muſt take to anſwer will ſerve to anſwer your ſelf in reſpect of Infants Church-Memberſhip: The Anſwer muſt be this, the National Church, and Church-Memberſhip, and Prieſthood of the Jews are diſſolved, and taken away, and thereby all thoſe external Rites and Prerogatives the Jewiſh Children had, are gone.
4. Theſe were as Legacies left in the old Will, in the old Teſtament: but there is a new Will made, or Chriſt hath made his laſt Will and Teſtament, and in this his laſt Will and Teſtament, none of theſe external Rites or Prerogatives (as you call them) are left to Infants. Sir, there is no need in a new Will, in the laſt Will and Teſtament, to mention Negatives, that is not uſual; not what is not left, but only in the Affirmative, what is left: therefore in vain is this Flouriſh, it will do your People, who are ſhaken in their Belief of your Tradition, no good.
5. You bid them call for a Scripture from thoſe that oppoſe their Practice in the Negative, i. e. that forbid Infants Church-Memberſhip, or ſpeak where they were caſt out. O how dangerous is your Doctrine! May not the Papiſts ſay to them alſo, Where do you read holy Water and holy Garments are forbid? Moſes commanded the People to be ſprinkled with Water, and many other Rites that were among the Jews. We ſay the Papiſts call for Scripture where thoſe things are forbid which they have among them, or when God caſt them out of the Church? What Human Tradition may not be let into the Church at this Door?
You ſay, the unbelieving Jews would have ſtumbled if Paul had caſt out their Children from the Church, and put them in the ſame Condition as the Children of Infidels.
Anſw. 'Tis your miſtake, he told them plainly, that the Children of the Fleſh were not the Children of God, i. e. of the Promiſe, or of the true Goſpel-Church, as ſuch, Rom. 9. 5, 6, 7. yet they ſtumbled not; nay, ſhewed them they and their Children had no external Privileges above the Gentiles, and that Circumciſion availed them nothing; and yet the believing Jews ſtumbled not at his Doctrine. Sir, no doubt when the Jews are called they will not be of your mind, to plead the old Covenant-right of their Children, being Members, as ſuch.
You ſay, That we judg the Adult holy, becauſe they are ſeparated unto the Lord in a Profeſſion of Holineſs, altho it be too often an Hypocritical Profeſſion, and ſhall we not (ſay you) judg the Children of the Faithful to be holy whom God ſo called? &c.
Anſw. 1. God called the whole Houſe of Iſrael holy, becauſe he ſeparated them to himſelf, both Parents and Children, in a legal Church-ſtate, whether the Parents were Believers, or faithful Perſons, or real Saints, or not; but God in the Goſpel hath ſeparated none to be Members of the Goſpel-Church, but ſuch that are Adult Perſons, Believers in …ued with real Holineſs. There is, I tell you again, no Fleſhly Relative Federal Holineſs under the Diſpenſation of the Goſpel ſpoken of, diſprove it if you can.
2. As to the Holineſs of Infants born in lawful Wedlock, they are by the Lord called holy, or a Godly Seed, Mal. 2. 15. And did he make one? (i. e. one Wife) yet he had the reſidue of the Spirit; and wherefore one? that he might ſeek a Godly Seed, that is, a godly or holy Seed by Legitimation; whether the Man or the Woman joined together in holy Matrimony, are Believers or Unbelievers, their Seed is a godly or holy Seed in this reſpect; and not only the Seed of the Faithful, as you intimate, but the Seed of Unbelievers alſo, and ſo not a Federal or Spiritual Holineſs, as you would have it.
The Seed born to the Faithful, ſay you, in lawful Wedlock are a godly and holy Seed; God calleth ſuch his Children that were born to them, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. As it was formerly, even ſo it is under the New Teſtament, thoſe that are ſeparated unto the Lord by Baptiſm are called a holy Nation.
Anſw. It follows then by your Argument that the Children of Unbelievers born in lawful Wedlock are not a holy Seed, that is, they are Baſtards or Caſt-aways; but you muſt firſt prove their Marriage unlawful, and the Holineſs here mentioned ſuch you ſpeak of, before you carry this Point.
2. All the Children of the whole Houſe of Iſrael were typically and federally holy then in that National Church: you confound typical federal Holineſs, and Matrimonial Holineſs together, which are quite remote in their nature.
3. We ſay all Believers baptized under the Goſpel are ſpiritually holy, and are called, 1 Pet. 2. 7. a holy Nation, a Royal Prieſthood; but this holy Nation conſiſteth of none but Adult Perſons that believe, who are called lively Stones building up a ſpiritual Houſe, 1 Pet. 2. 5, 6. not a National Church conſiſting of Parents and their Fleſhly Seed, as ſuch, as under the Law. But if for Argument-ſake we ſhould grant all that were in the Goſpel-times received as Members in the viſible Church, ſhould be called holy in Charity from that Profeſſion they made, yet this will do you no good, until by God's Ordination you can prove that the Infants of Believers were received as Members into the Church in Goſpel-times, as they were into the National Church of the Jews under the Law.
You ſay, that Paul calleth the Chriſtians in his Epiſtles to the Churches of the Gentiles, Saints, Rom. 1. 7. a Cor. 1. 1. becauſe they were ſeparated by Covenant, and the Obligation of Baptiſm to be the Lord's; and not only the believing Parents, but the Children alſo are Saints: and for this you cite this Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. But now are they holy.
Anſw. Prove that the Infants of Believers were comprehended amongſt the Saints Paul wrote unto, and that they were Church-Members; we utterly deny it, and muſt People believe it on your bare Teſtimony? In whoſe Authority and Power then muſt ſtand their Faith in this matter? Sir, you bring the Text in Controverſy only to prove your Aſſertion. Is this to act like a wiſe and learned Man? If the Holineſs in the Text renders Infants to be Saints, prove your Expoſition from ſome other Scripture, which if you cannot do, give up the Point, and confeſs your Miſtake and Ignorance; for no Scripture is of any private Interpretation, i. e. but that it may be confirmed by ſome other place or places of ſacred Scripture.
And now becauſe Mr. Burkitt, a learned Pedo-baptiſt, in his late Book for Infant-Baptiſm, argues from this Text as you do, and I have fully in anſwering him anſwered you both, I ſhall here repeat his Arguments, and my Reply: he ſays, Paul in theſe words anſwers the Corinthians Scruple; you ſay the Apoſtle in theſe words anſwers a Queſtion propoſed by the believing Corinthians, viz. Whether ſuch as had Heathen and Infidel Wives ought to put them away with their Children, as in the days of Ezra? The Apoſtle reſolves them that they ought not: For, ſaith he, the unbelieving Wife is ſanctified by the believing Husband. How ſanctified? Not in her Name, but in her Uſe, ſays Mr. Burkitt, ſo as that they might lawfully cohabit and converſe together. And for your Children they are holy, not with an Inherent, Internal, Perſonal Holineſs; for the holieſt Man-child is born in Sin, and by Nature a Child of Wrath; but with an External, Relative, Federal Holineſs, they are not common and unclean, like the Children of Infidels, but fit to be partakers of the Privileges of the Church, which the Children of Infidels are not. Thus Mr. Barkitt.
Now I anſwer, as I have anſwered him, you can't be ignorant, but that you know well enough this Text hath been fully opened by divers learned Men as well Pedobaptiſts as Anti-pedobaptiſts, who prove the Holineſs here ſpoken of, is no ſuch External Relative Federal Holineſs you dream of. In the firſt place, you ſpeak right, it was about that very matter that the Corinthians wrote to St. Paul, viz. Whether the believing Husband might live or cohabit with the unbelieving Wife? &c. So that the Scope and Coherence of the Text opens the matter, and ſhews what Holineſs 'tis the Apoſtle intends, viz. a Matrimonial Holineſs; for ſhould he make their Marriage void, their Children would be unclean or illegitimate, i. e. Baſtards: for tho … true, the caſe was not as Mr. Burkitt ſays concerning Men and Whores, but about Husbands and Wives, yet he honeſtly ſays it was about the Lawfulneſs of their Marriage, as in Ezra's time, when ſome were commanded to put their Wives away, becauſe their Marriage was unlawful. Now ſuch, ſay we, as is the Sanctification or Holineſs of the unbelieving Wife or Husband, is the Sanctification or Holineſs of the …, and that Mr. Burkitt grants to be a Matrimonial Sanctification, ſo as that they might lawfully cohabit together a Man and Wife. And indeed if the Children had from hence an External Relative Federal Holineſs, it would follow alſo that the unbelieving Husband and Wife had ſuch an External Relative Federal Holineſs likewiſe, and that would open the ſame Door to baptize the unbelieving Husband or Wife. For may not another Perſon argue thus, The unbelieving Husband is holy or ſanctified by the believing Wife, and therefore by virtue of her Faith may and ought to be baptized? Mr. Burkitt reads [to] the believing Husband, and indeed I find the Greek word is elſewhere ſo rendred.
Let us conſider how the Apoſtle ſpeaks, viz. with reſpect to a thing preſent or paſt, therefore he uſeth the Preterperfect Tenſe foreign, hath been ſanctified: Yea in probability he ſpeaks of Sanctification even when both were Unbelievers, or Infidels, for he ſaith foreign thrice in the Preterperfect Tenſe, and he mentions the Unbeliever diſtinctly, but the Believer without the Expreſſion of his Faith, under the Title of Husband or Wife, and ſaith your Children in Diſcrimination, with Difference, as well thoſe they had before one was a Believer, as ſince; and if ſo, then the Children born to them whilſt both were Unbelievers, were as holy as ſuch born after one became a Believer, and what Holineſs was in the Children then think you? even no other than what is in all Children born in lawful Wedlock, whether their Parents are Believers or Unbelievers. And this ſenſe is the more confirmed in that foreign Sanctification is the ſame with Chaſtity, 1 Theſſ. 4. 7. ſo that the ſenſe is, the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified to his Wife, that is lawfully or chaſtly uſed as a Huſband, without Fornication in reſpect of his own Wife, whether Believer or Unbeliever, and therefore not to be refuſed. And this ſenſe only ſerves for the Apoſtle's purpoſe. The Words are a Reaſon why they might lawfully live together; the Reaſon muſt be taken from that which was not contingent but certain. Therefore let them live together, for tho one be an Unbeliever, yet Marriage continues ſtill, they are Husband and Wife, and ſanctified to each other in reſpect of their chaſt Enjoyment of each other, and it is no Sin in them to company together, notwithſtanding the Unbelief of one Party: for Marriage is honourable among all, even Unbelievers, and the Bed undefiled, Heb. 13. 4. and Holineſs and Honour are Terms (as one obſerves) of like ſenſe in this matter, 1 Theſſ. 4 7. Now this being granted, which indeed muſt of neceſſity, then the Uncleanneſs muſt be underſtood of Baſtardy, and the Holineſs of Legitimation, as Mat. 2. 15. for no other Holineſs neceſſarily follows to their Children, in that their Parents Marriage is lawful: See the Apoſtle's Concluſion, Elſe were your Children unclean; you leave out [Elſe] for you mention Children as another Doubt which was in the Corinthians about them, which cannot be gathered from the Text nor Scope of it; but [elſe] were your Children unclean, is brought in a an Argument to prove that which he ſaith laſt, as the Particle foreign ſhews; for the terms foreign elſewhere are Argumentative as much as Quoniam, becauſe th…n uſed. So 1 Cor. 15. 14. 29. Rom. 11. 16. to prove that which went before; and here the Argument is ab abſurdo, from an Abſurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted; and the Speech muſt needs be Elliptick, and ſomewhat is to be repeated to make the Speech full; as when 'tis ſaid, Rom. 11. 6. foreign, to make up the ſenſe, you muſt add, foreign, becauſe of Work; and ſo here foreign; for if the unbelieving Husband hath not been ſanctified to his Wife, your Children, &c. So that this Argument of the Apoſtle is entire, viz. If the unbelieving Husband were not ſanctified by the Wife, then were your Children unclean; but they are not unclean; Ergo, the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified to the Wiſe. Now the Major of the Syllogiſm is a Contradiction, the Sequel of it were not true if this Propoſition were not true: All the Children of thoſe, whereof the one is not ſanctified to the other, are unclean. Now if the Sanctification be here meant of a Matrimonial Sanctification, as I have proved it muſt, and the Uncleanneſs be meant of Federal Uncleanneſs, ſo as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of ſaving Grace, or Church-Privileges, the Propoſition were moſt falſe, ſince the Children of Parents, whereof one was not Matrimonially ſanctified to the other, but came together unchaſtly, as Pharez and Sarah, Judah and Tamar, Jepthah of Gilead, and many others were within the Covenant of ſaving Grace and Church-Privileges: Therefore to make the Propoſition true (without which, the Apoſtle ſpeaks that which is moſt falſe) it muſt be underſtood of Uncleanneſs by Baſtardy; for it's true of no other Uncleanneſs; that all Children of thoſe Parents, whereof the one is not ſanctified to the other, are unclean, but now are they holy: The Particle foreign but now, is not an Adverb of Time here, as Beza rightly ſpeaks, but foreign elſewhere: So foreign but [now] is a Particle of Reaſoning uſed in the Aſſumption of Arguments, which ſhews it is the Aſſumption of the Apoſtle's Argument, and therefore it muſt be underſtood of Holineſs oppoſite to the Uncleanneſs mentioned; but that being no other than Baſtardy, the Holineſs can be meant of no other than Legitimation. Nor is this any more an unlikely Senſe, ſith Baſtards were reckoned among unclean Perſons, Deut. 23. 2. and the Apoſtle's Expreſſion is alluſive to the Jewiſh Speaking and Eſtimation, and why it ſhould be thought ſtrange that Holy ſhould ſignify Legitimation I know not, whenas Mal. 2. 5. foreign a Seed of God, is rendered by ſome Pedo-baptiſts a Holy Seed, which were ſuch Children (you can't deny) born in lawful Marriage. And that we are not alone touching this ſenſe of the Words and Matter, pray take the Teſtimony of divers Learned Men, who yet held Infant-Baptiſm, but found this Text remote to the buſineſs of proving it.
Jerom, as I find him quoted by a Learned Man, ſaith, becauſe of God's Appointment Marriage is holy.
See Chamier, who ſays, Sic Ambroſium, Thomam, Anſelmum expoſuiſſe, & tum Suarez appellat literalem ſenſum That Ambroſe, Thomas, Anſelm ſo expounded it, and this Suarez calls the literal ſenſe.
Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place ſaith thus, Therefore Paul anſwers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled aſunder for their unlike Opinions of God. The impious Perſon does not caſt away the other: And for Comfort, he adds as a Reaſon, the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by the believing Wife. Meat is ſanctified; for that which is holy in uſe, is granted to Believers by God: things prohibited under the Law, as Swines Fleſh, and a Woman in her Pollution, were called unclean. The Connexion of the Argument is this, If the uſe of Marriage ſhould not pleaſe God, your Children would be Baſtards, and ſo unclean; but your Children are not Baſtards, therefore the uſe of Marriage pleaſeth God: and how Baſtards were unclean in a peculiar matter, the Law ſhews, Deut.—. Thus far Melancthon gives the ſame ſenſe, as Chamier obſerves.
Muſculus in his Comment on the place, confeſſeth that he had formerly abuſed this place againſt the Anabaptiſts.
Camera on the place ſaith, [For the unbelieving Huſband hath been ſanctified] an unuſual change of the Tenſe, that is, ſanctified in the lawful uſe of Marriage: for without this, ſaith he, it would be that their Children ſhould be unclean, that is, infamous, and not legitimate; whoſo are holy (that is, during the Marriage) are without all Blot or Ignominy.
Eraſmus upon the place ſaith thus, Infants born of ſuch Parents, as one being a Chriſtian, the other not, are legitimately holy; for the Converſion of either Husband or Wife doth not diſſolve the Marriage which was made when both were in Unbelief.
Nay, I find a very learned Divine to affirm, that the Antients expounded this place no otherwiſe. None, ſaith he, that ever I met with expounded it of Federal Holineſs, till the Controverſy of the Anabaptiſts in Germany aroſe.
And ſince Mr. Burkitt is ſo ingenuous as to confeſs, that the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified in reſpect of Conjugal Relation to the Wife in a way of Marriage, in which ſo far he agrees with thoſe Learned Men; this being ſo, how comes he to aſſert 'tis Federal Holineſs that is ſaid to be in the Children?
And by what we ſay, it appears, it is not a racking of the Scripture o maintain a private Opinion; and tho the word [holy] refers here to what we affirm with others, yet the Apoſtle ſpeaks truly; tho it is granted the Children of Heathens born in lawful Wedlock, are no more Baſtards than the Children of Chriſtians For if the Marriage were made voi…, it would render their Children to be unclean, or baſe born. And what tho the Greek word does ſignify in ſo many places, as Mr. Burkitt ſaith, ſpiritual Sanctification and Separation to God; yet ſhew us, ſay I, where it ſignifies External, Relative, Federal Holineſs in the New Teſtament: yet as one obſerves, the word is not bound up to that ſenſe as he ſeems to intimate; for foreign is uſed for Caſtimoni…m ſer…, as Stephanus in his Theſaurus obſerves out of Demoſthenes, foreign, where a Prieſt of Bacchus ſpeaks thus, foreign, I am holy and pure from the Company of Man: and the words foreign, chaſt, to be chaſt, to make chaſt, Chaſtity, coming from the ſame Root with foreign holy, whether foreign to reverence, or foreign to admire, as Grammarians conceive, are uſed for Holineſs very frequently, both in Scripture and in all ſorts of Greek Writers: So that what he ſays as to the Signification of the word foreign holy, that it cannot be taken for [legitimate] is fully cleared, and we juſtified from the Pedo-baptiſts unjuſt Accuſation, viz. that we wreſted the word to favour our private Opinion. And now to conclude; But if it doth ſignify Holy, as you and your Brethren ſay, why might not the Children of ſuch as the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, be ſaid to be holy, as well as the Infidel or unbelieving Wife is ſaid to be ſanctified? What is the difference between holy and ſanctified?
Mr. Owen ſays, If the Children of the Faithful are not Members of the Church of God, then they are Members of the Kingdom of Satan, who is the Prince of this World: If they are without the Church, what hopes of Salvation have they? there is no Salvation out of the Church, Rom. 9. 4.
Anſw. 1. I hope my Antagoniſt is a Proteſtant; but I muſt aſſure my Reader, he here maintains a Popiſh Doctrine, which all our worthy Proteſtant Divines have proteſted againſt. How! is there no Salvation out of the Viſible Church? God forbid. I doubt not but there are many gracious Perſons who ſhall be certainly ſaved, and who do truly believe in Chriſt, that are not Members of any true Goſpel Church. Will you exclude all from Salvation that are not Members of your Church? I cannot think you own the Church of England to be a true Goſpel-Church, and will you exclude all that are of that Communion from the Kingdom of Heaven?
2. But as to Infants, they are born Children of Wrath, and actually in Satan's Kingdom, till God is pleaſed to ſanctify them; and thoſe who die in Infancy that are ſaved, no doubt he doth ſanctify their unclean Nature, but not ſuch as live and remain in Satan's Kingdom, until they are regenerated by the Word and Spirit of God, after they are grown up to Underſtanding.
3. Therefore ſome Infants may be Members of the Inviſiole Church, or Myſtical Body of Chriſt, (tho not Members of the Viſible Church) and of this ſort there may be among the Children of Unbelievers, as well as among the Children of Believers; for the Election of Grace runs not only to the Seed of the Faithful, ſay what you pleaſe, as I ſaid before.
4. Therefore you do not well to call Children Dogs, if they are not in the Pale of the Viſible Church.
You ſay, the Promiſes are the Inheritance of the Church, not to thoſe that are without; and therefore, ſay you, if the Children be without, they are among Dogs, and what Promiſe belongs to them? Rev. 22. 15. and where there is no Promiſe, there is no hope of Salvation, &c.
Anſw. 1. I anſwer, the Promiſe runs to Chriſt, and all that the Father hath given him, but we do not know who they are until they believe.
2. The Promiſes are not the Inheritance of all that are Members of the Viſible Church, for they may not belong to ſome that are in it, and they may belong to ſome others that are not in it. You darken Counſel with Words without Knowledg. For, (1.) You diſtinguiſh not between the Viſible and Inviſible Church. (2.) Alſo you diſtinguiſh not between who are the Lord's decretively, and who are his actually. (3.) Moreover, you diſtinguiſh not between external Privileges, and true internal ſpiritual Privileges. No external Privileges, or outward Church-Memberſhip gives any Man a Right to Salvation, nor puts him under the Promiſe thereof.
3. There is hope and ground of hope touching the Salvation of dying Infants, tho they are not in Goſpel-times of the Viſible Church; becauſe Chriſt ſaith, of ſuch belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. But pray, Sir, take heed of what you ſay: You cannot prove that our bleſſed Saviour ſpake thoſe words only with reference to the Children of Believers. I know no cauſe why unbelieving Parents ſhould doubt of the Salvation of their dying Infants. They may (ſo far as I ſee) have as much ground to hope God's Election may reach their dying Infants, as any Believer can have it may reach to theirs. What if I ſhould exerciſe ſo much Charity as to hope that God hath comprehended in his electing Love all the dying Infants both of Believers and Unbelievers, and that through the Blood and Merits of Chriſt they are ſanctified, and ſhall be all ſaved?
My Opinion, were it ſo, could not juſtly be condemned by any; but I ſay ſecret things belong to God, and I ſhall forbear to paſs any Judgment in the caſe, but leave it to God; but I am ſure no Child ſhall be damned for the Parent's Fault. Can Parents by baptizing their Infants ſave them? Or are they Dogs, and muſt be damned if their Parents baptize them not, and dare not do it becauſe Chriſt hath not commanded them to baptize them?
4. Sir, what if a Man and his Wife when they were both vile and ungodly People, as bad as any that live on Earth, ſhould beget many Children, and afterwards they both believe and become good Chriſtians, is the State of thoſe Children begotten when they believed good, and they holy? and are the Children they had when they were vile and wicked Perſons, bad, nay ſo bad as they are to be counted Dogs? O that God would open your Eves! Nay, if it were as you intimate, it may be queried, Whether it be not a ſinful, a wicked, and an unlawful thing for two ungodly, unbelieving, unfaithful Perſons to marry, ſince they can beget no Children but ſuch as you call Dogs; for you will not ſay their Children are holy, or ought to be baptized, nor are in the Pale of the Church.
But to conclude with this Chapter; let me ſpeak a word to you that are Believers, and alſo a word to you that are Unbelievers, and I ſhall paſs to the next Argument.
1. To you that are Believers and have Children; if they are holy and Heirs of Heaven, as they are begotten and born of your Bodies, as Mr. Owen, and other Pedobaptiſts aſſert, then you need not trouble your Thoughts about your dying Infants, tho they are not baptized; for 'tis not Baptiſm makes them holy, by Mr. Owen's Conceſſion, but becauſe they are your Children; 'tis by your Faith they are holy, as he blindly ſuppoſes.
2. And ſince Baptiſm doth not belong to them, Chriſt no where having commanded you to baptize them, nor can it add any thing to their Salvation; I charge you in the Fear of God baptize them not.
3. But do not believe Mr. Owen, nor any other Man in what he ſays, unleſs he can prove it from God's Word. I tell you from Chriſt's own Words you have ground of hope touching the State of your dying Infants, but not becauſe they are your Children, but becauſe of ſuch belongs the Kingdom of Heaven, and they may be in God's eternal Election of Grace: For, as Dr. Taylor ſaith, and I mentioned before, God may have many ways to apply the Blood of Chriſt to ſave and ſanctify dying Infants, which we know not of; but we are not any more required to haptize them, or to give them one Sacrament, than we are required to give them the other, viz. the Lord's-Supper; and this he will one day know to be a Truth, tho now he ſees it not.
O! ſaith Mr. Owen, caſt them not out from the Church of God, out of the Covenant of Salvation; they are your dear Children, Children of your Bodies, of your Vows. O, ſhew them the Mercy of God! the Church of God is willing to receive them: O rent them not from the Myſtical Body, of which they are Members. See pag.—
Anſw. You Godly Parents take heed what Doctrine you receive, you cannot caſt your Infants out of the Inviſible and Myſtical Body of Chriſt, if they are in it, nor caſt them out of the Covenant of Salvation: No, no, that's not in the Power of Mortals: We cannot receive them or bring them into the Covenant of Salvation, nor make them Members of Chriſt's Inviſible and Myſtical Body. None can do that but God himſelf, Chriſt himſelf; 'tis prepoſterous Stuff, ſtrange Doctrine this poor Man troubles you with. Good Men may in ſome things be blinded and miſled: Try his Doctrine, ſearch the Scriptures, take nothing upon truſt without trial.
As to your bringing of your Children into the Viſible Church, ſo as to be Members thereof, and to have right to the holy Sacraments, they muſt come in at the Door of Regeneration, not by Generation; even at the ſame Door you came in at if you are true Members thereof: and O therefore pray for your Children, they are dear to you, bring them up in the Fear of God, command them to ſeek after the Knowledg of their Natural State, and to know and believe in Jeſus Chriſt, and ſet them a good Example. I know not what better Counſel to give you concerning your Children.
Secondly, To you that are Unbelievers who have Children. Do not fear the State of thoſe dear Babes of yours that die in Infancy, you have no cauſe to doubt of their Happineſs, but your Children may be ſaved that die in their Infancy, as well as the Infants of faithful and godly Parents. Alſo the Infants of Godly People are no more holy than yours, if your Marriage was good and lawful; for Marriage is honourable in all; it belongs to Unbelievers, and is God's holy Ordinance to them as well as 'tis to Believers. But O let it be your Care and chief Buſineſs to get true Faith in Jeſus Chriſt; for Matrimonial Sanctification in your ſelves, or the Holineſs of Legitimation in your Children will add nothing to yours or their Salvation; but till you and your Off-ſpring do believe and are ſpiritually holy, and ſanctified by the Blood of Chriſt, through Faith of the Operation of God, neither you nor they have any right to the Sign, which is Baptiſm: for as we deny the Infants of Believers, as ſuch, have any right to Baptiſm, ſo be ſure your Children have no right thereto; yet the Promiſe is to you and your Children, or Off-ſpring, whenever the Lord is pleaſed to call either you or your Children by the preaching of the Word, &c.