the Promise is also to those that are afar off viz. the Gentiles even as many as the Lord our God shall call Antipaed It is true it is joyn'd to the Latter Sentence Paed. And there is a manifest Reason that Limits it to the latter Sentence Because that tho' the Blessing of Abraham be come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14 That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ Yet no Gentile Nation had such a Promise but as converted and call'd to Christianity and so becoming Abraham's Spiritual Seed they are heirs of the same Promises with the Jews So that the meaning of that Scripture is plainly this Repent and be Baptized O ye Jews for the Promise is to you and your seed as God spake to Abraham And it 's the same Covenant that Baptism Seals to And your children have the same Priviledge of Entering into Covenant with your selves as you know And the same Promise of Pardon and Priviledge is also to as many Gentile Nations as shall be converted to the Faith so yet they and their Children may be Baptized into Covenant as well as they Antipaed You have said enough of this Scripture pray name another Paed. The next Scripture I shall offer you to prove Infant Baptism That is that it was Sufficiently known in the New Testament that Infants came into the Covenant with their Parents shall be 1 Cor. 7.14 For the unbelieveing Husband is Sanctify'd by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctify'd by the Husband else were your Children Vnclean but now are they Holy Antipaed I Expected this but I wonder you should urge it when you have been so often told that the Holiness there is a Marriage Holiness and the Holiness of their children is but this that they are not Bastards Paed. And I wonder more you Shelter your self under so pitiful an Evasion But to answer you Will not you grant in the General That whatever be the Holiness here to be understood it is a priviledge which Children receive from their Parents Antipaed That cannot be deny'd Paed. Then if I prove that this Holiness is not Legitimacy but a priviledge of another Nature and such as entitles them unto the Covenant you 'll confess I prove what I produced this Scripture for Antipaed Let me see the Performance Paed. To remove your Allegation that the Childrens uncleanness is in this case Bastardy and so intended by the Apostle I aske you Was not the Law of Marriage observ'd among the Heathens And was it not a known thing that among them fornication was distinguish'd from the Issue of such Marriages some children being reckoned Bastards and others Legitimate If you say there was no such thing you contradict the Apostle who here saith they were Husband and Wife before Conversation and elsewhere mentioneth fornication as a sin which the Heathens themselves owned as such and that Incust was such a degree of fornication as was rarely found amongst them If you grant this Distinction of Bastard and Legitimate Children was found among the Heathen then be sure the Apostle did not design to overthrow this difference and call all the Children of Heathens Bastards But I aske you further If Marriages of the Heathens were not Lawful Marriages and so esteemed by the Apostle Why did he not direct them to be Married anew This he would have done If Infidels in the Matrimonial state lived in fornication I might ask yet further where the word Holy is ever us'd to signify Legitimacy of Children And if you seriously consider the Occasion of the Apostles discourse you 'll find it was this When the Gospel was preached to the Heathens it frequently happened that sometimes an Heathen Wife was converted and not the Husband and sometimes on the contrary Now in this case the Question was not whether the Marriage was Lawfull But whether it were to be continu'd in Because if it were the converted Party was to live in Society with an Idolater This might seem a difficult case and its rise from what we Read in Ezra Where the Reforming Israelites put away their strange Wives but there was this difference in these two Cases In that of the Jews they being of another Religion when there was no need and expresly against God's Command took Idolatrous Wives Here both Parties when they Marry'd were Idolaters alike and therefore the Apostle determines their Marriages being Lawful before they might still continue in that state though but one Party were Converted if both were willing In this case the Apostle takes it for granted that the Marriage was Lawful and if it had not been so there had been no room for so difficult a Question and all might have been Answer'd with this That it was no Marriage and therefore they were at Liberty Once again let me Ask you Suppose among Christians both Husband and Wife be Unbelievers are their Children Bastards and do they live in Fornication till one at least be Converted And doth Faith make that Marriage-Society which was Fornication before to become Lawful And doth it Legitimate the Children Antipae But if I grant all this yet the Holiness of the Children seems not to be real Sanctification because the Believers Wife or Husband are said to be Sanctifyed Paed. Nor do we say it is But the Text evidently shews all we seek for viz That the Children in this case are not reckoned as the Children of Infidels that are Strangers to the Covenant but are Numbred amongst the Peculiar People of God Let it be observ'd the Apostle gives this as a Reason of the advice for the Continuance of their Conjugal Estate The Unbelieving Party doth not make their Marriage-State Unholy but the Relation is so Sanctifyed to a Believer as other things are for Holy and Lawful Uses that Children have the known Priviledge which Children of the Jews and Gentile Believers have not to be cast out of the Covenant as unclean but to be accepted into the Covenant with the Believing Parent If you yet doubt Whether this be the Sense of the Apostles Reasoning I pray you consider to what purpose the Apostle should have mentioned their Children certainly he intends to signify that the Children have some priviledge by their Parents and if this priviledge be not Legitimacy as I have prov'd and I think for shame you will Urge it no more then there is no Church priviledge can be thought of but that known priviledge of Childrens Entring into Covenant with their Parents and this the Apostle doth not speak of as a New proposed Doctrin but as generally known and truly appliable in this case as well as others Antipaed Have you any more Scriptures to offer for proof That Children entring into Covenant with their Parents was a known and unquestionable Truth in the New Testament Paed. All these Scriptures that speak of the families priviledge upon the Master or Mistress's believing Luke 19.9 And Jesus said unto him This day is Salvation come to this
nor has he tyed us to the Quantity of Water in Bapiism By this time you cannot but see That either an over-fondness of a Received Opinion has Captivated you into a Beliefe of the Impregnableness of such Weak Arguments Or that you have too easily taken upon Trust bare Assertions from Men that by plausible for solid you see it is not Arguing would cast a Mist before your Eyes that you may not discover the Nakedness and Weakness of their Pleas about the Subjects of Baptism That which further lays open the Slender hold you have of Scripture is the Squeesing of Words and forcing them to your Purpose and Indoctrinating your Proselytes in Greek Criticks Shall such a great and necessary Truth lie couched in a little and Arbitrary Criticism which proves false or doubtful when it comes to the Tryal They must have a stronger Faith than I either pretend to or desire that can credit it Antipaed But if the Word it self is not sufficient Witness for us yet that with the Aid of Scripture Examples will abundantly prove what we plead for Was not John Baptising in Enon And is not the Reason plain because there was much Water there John 3.23 Is not the Eunuch said to go into and come out of the Water and is not the same said of our Blessed Saviour What can be more clear Paed. Nothing I confess to those that will look at Scripture through the Glass of their own Opinion but a thinking and unprejudiced person will not be deceved by appearances your much Water in Greek is ΠΟΛΛΑΥΔΑΤΑ many Waters Streams or Rivulets where tho' there might be much Water comparatively to other places in that Land where Water was scarce yet says nothing as to the Depth of the Water Besides the Name of the place Enon a little Fountain and doubtless they gave it a name answerable to the Quantity of Waters there and the Account of Travellers favour this Exposition Your Instances of going in or coming out of the Water are of no more Validity There are few Waters but they run Low and a man cannot come to them but by descending nor come from them but by ascending and if you will have these Phrases to conclude any thing it must be the Baptising of the Administrator as well as the Penitent and then it will over-do for it is spoken of both But granting these already mentioned were baptiz'd by Dipping How got they Water for Plunging in the midst of the Night Antip. Yes Why might not they have Vessels in the House large enough Paed. That is a meer Childish Cavil so much Water would stink and corrupt before it were used and it is mere Conjecture all and may as easily be deny'd as affirm'd Antipae But Christ has affixed such a meaning to the Action of Plunging that can be Answer'd no other way Rom. 6.4 Therefore we are Buryed with him by Baptism into Death c. Col. 2.12 Buryed with him in Baptism How can Sprinkling or Pouring on of Water shadow out Death Paed. It will represent Death to Sin as well to us as Plunging did to them for as their Burying was by putting the Body down into a deep Hole or by hiding it in a hollow'd Rock laying it in at the side whereby it was suddenly cover'd and out of sight So ours is by laying it in the Ground and throwing Earth or Dust upon it Is not our way then considering the different Custom of the Country as Teaching and Edifying as yours But that I may dispatch an Answer to your whole Objection The Spiritual Grace is as well signify'd by Pouring or Sprinkling for whether you will have the Water to signify the Cleansing Power of Christ's Blood nothing can do it more lively seeing it is call'd The Blood of Sprinkling Heb. 12.24 And to the Blood of Sprinkling Or the Graces of the Holy Spirit purchased by that Blood which the Scripture calls A pouring out of the Spirit we are not behind you in your way of Administration As ours hath all the Advantages you can pretend to in your way so ours labours not under the Inconveniency and Indecency that yours doth Antipae What do you mean Paed. I mean the Immodesty and Hazard of Baptizing Naked or next to Naked Antipae I wonder you 'll charge us with such an Abominable Practice as Baptizing Naked 'T is a thing we all detest Paed. It may be you do But then let me tell you 1. That you Baptize the Garments as well as the Person that wears them And 2. You must quit all your Pretence to Antiquity for so long as they practis'd Dowsing the Persons that were to be Baptiz'd were stript of their Garments And this they did to signifie The putting off the Old Man and Body of Sin Baptizing in Water was to them Cleansing from and Dying to Sin And the putting on the White Garment which they had on purpose was a putting on the New Man But tho in the Hot Countreys where they went almost Naked such practises were more seemly yet they would be next to Scandalous amongst us And the Garments you have if I be rightly Informed are not so Comely and Distinguishing as they should be And very light and loose sort of Garments they must be that will on a sudden Plunge give Passage for the Water to the Whole Body Antipae The hazard you speak of would not be so much dreaded if Men Indulg'd not their own Unbelief and Carnallity God will keep Men in the Exercise of their Duty I know not any one that ever got harm by being Baptiz'd tho I have known many Weak People Paptized in Winter and some have been better after Paed. I have heard the same observ'd of Childrens being Baptiz'd Yet are we not to tempt God especially when he has not oblig'd us to the more severe way where there is Imminent Danger God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice The Sabbath-day must rather be violated than a Sick Person not Cur'd or a Necessitous Person not Reliev'd And Circumcision is Dispens'd with in the Wilderness because of the Danger and Inconvenience that attended it in that unsetled and wandring State of the Church And the Jews saw it necessary to soften the Extremity of some Usages Commanded by God If a Man had Two Children that dyed upon Circumcision Ainsworth on Gen. 17 13. it was taken for granted that Circumcision was fatal to the Males of that Family and therefore the succeeding Children were not to be Circumcised in Infancy And I remember Mr. Tombes somewhere in his Precursor allows of Warm Water to Weak Persons The Primitive Christians thought Sprinkling was sufficient for the Clinici those that were Baptized in Sickness upon their Beds But you are the Men and Wisdom must dye with you Whole Congregations must forfeit their Baptism and be Unchurch'd because Unplung'd The desperate Tendency of such a Tenet renders it suspicious to me And it needs not only Water but Niter and much Sope to
house for asmuch as he also is the Son of Abraham Acts 11.14 Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be Sav'd 16.15 And when she was baptized and her houshold c. 31. And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house Antipaed How weak is your Proof for Baptizing Infants from such Scriptures How can you prove that these houses had children Paed. Not so fast I am not here arguing the Probability that these houses had children That they had not you can as little prove as I that they had But that for which I produce these Texts is this That the mentioning of House or Family speaks plainly a Priviledge which that House or Family had by its Master's Conversion Like that which Abraham's Family had when God enjoyned the Seal of the Covenant to him which reached to his Consenting Servants and his Children And Family is mention'd upon no other ground but as Children were reckon'd with their Parents before so it is still under the New Testament For if Salvation offer'd by Christ and Baptizing as the Seal of that Salvation had been intended only a Personal Priviledge to Lydia or the Jailor c. the Addition of that Mercy to that House or Family had been needless and no Priviledge would have been supposed to have accru'd to their Houses or Family as such Nor can you turn off that to Zaccheus Salvation is come to thy House by saying Christ who was Salvation was going to his House for Christ tho he be often call'd a Saviour yet is never call'd Salvation Besides that agrees not with the Reason that is given for asmuch as he also is a Son of Abraham but the Reason evidently relates to the Word House Salvation is come to thy House because thou being a Believer and so a Son of Abraham this Salvation belongs to thee and to thy Family according to the Promise which God made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee Antip. I have one Objection more which if you can Answer you will do much towards my Satisfaction I observe that there are such Antecedent Qualifications required to Baptism that it cannot be suppos'd that Infants should be capable of Baptism in that they cannot be so Qualifyed Mark 16.16 He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved c. Gal. 3.27 For as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Paed. I know these Scriptures pass for Invincible Arguments with some who Argue thence That Infants do not Believe and therefore ought not to be Baptiz'd They do not put on Christ and therefore ought not to be Baptiz'd But I do not Question but I shall make you quit your Argument presently if you will give me but a direct Answer to these Questions 1. Do you think these Scriptures speak of Infants or of Adult grown Persons Antipae I think these Scriptures speak of all that were to be Baptized and that none were to be Baptized but such as by Faith could put on Christ Paed. 2ly What do you think of Dying Infants shall they be Saved or Damned Antipae Why do you trouble me with that Question If I say they are Damn'd you will call me Uncharitable Paed. But seeing you Argue against Infant-Baptism from these Scriptures you cannot be offended if I make these Inferences from them 1 You say Infants do not believe And therefore cannot be Baptized Will it not be as clear an Inference Children cannot Believe Therefore they must be Damned 2. I Inferr if Children be not Damn'd then in some sense or other Infants do Believe and put on Christ and may be Baptized and Saved Or 3. I Inferr That if it be Uncharitable to imagine that Children are Damn'd for want of Actual Faith or Repentance then surely these Scriptures do not speak of the case of Infants but onely of the case of Adult Persons to whom onely the Gospel was first to be Preached and of whom Actual Faith and Repentance were required before either themselves or Infants could be capable of Baptism Now I leave it to your self to chuse which of these you please If you make choice of the first Inference you destroy your Opinion in the judgment of all good Men who will abhor such Blasphemy against God and such Uncharitableness to all Infants If you take the Second Inference you yield up the whole Cause If you fly for Refuge to the Third Inference Then you grant as much as we desire that the New Testament taking it for granted as a known General Truth gave no particular Commands or Directions about the Reception of Children into Covenant that being needless but only gave directions about Receiving Adult Jews or Gentiles into the Church upon their Conversion Aporet This is hard choice but I confess I see no other Remedy But I would rather fix upon the last Inference than upon the first For methinks it goes against Humane Nature to think or speak so harshly of poor Infants and surely no Parents whose Bowels yern after their Children can be fond of such an Opinion I pray call over the particulars discoursed that we may have a short sum of all Paed. I have proceeded by these steps 1. I have proved that God has taken care of the Salvation of Infants as well as of the Adult 2. I have proved God's way and method to Salvation is to bring them into the Covenant of Grace 3. I have proved that Children were all along in Covenant with their Parents 4. That as soon as God added Seals to the Covenant he Commanded Children to be brought under the Initiating Seal of it 5. That this was not a Priviledge peculiar to the Children of the Jews only But that the Infants of Proselited Gentiles were Admitted to the Seal 6. That the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace 7. That the Edition of that Covenant in the New Testament was the same for Substance 8. That when God saw it fit to take away Circumcision he Instituted to his Covenant as a Seal to it the Ordinance of Baptism 9. In the Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles for their Conversion it was never Question'd but known of all that their Children were to come into Covenant with their Converted Parents 10. That therefore it was needless to give particular directions about Infants 11. That the Great Business of the first Planters of the Gospel being to Convert Jews and Gentiles all that was usually said about Baptism related to the Adult 12. And I have also proved that where there was occasion the New Testament hath sufficiently declared the Infants Right to the Promise and Covenant as derived from their Believing Parents 13. I have besides this Answered all your Objections And now tell me whether this be not for all the Talk about Precept and President a giving you both Precept and President plainly for this That Children were under