Baptism, Part 2 · Chapter 3

Baptism · Part 2 · Chapter 3

p. 151CHAP. III. Wherein the Erroneous Grounds both as to fabulous Traditions, and miſtaken Scriptures, upon which Infants Baptiſm hath been both formerly and laterly founded, is made manifeſt.

THe Firſt and Principal Ground that hath been aſſerted for this practice, hath been Eccleſiaſtical and Apoſtolical Tradition; or however (as hath been ſaid) the Scripture is ſo ſilent in the Caſe, yet the clear, full and uninterrupted Tradition of the Church, makes up that defect, to which the Church of Rome and ſome others have adhered.

Though many Proteſtants, ſince the Reformation, have choſe to flye to ſome Conſequential Arguments deduced, as they ſuppoſe from the Scriptures to juſtifie the ſame.

Both which in this Chapter are brought forth, and duly weighed in the Ballance of Truth.

The Firſt we ſhall examine is the p. 152point of Tradition, and therein do theſe two things, Shew that it hath primarily been aſſerted to be the ground thereof. Secondly, The inſufficiency of the Authorities that have been urged to prove the ſame.Tradition the principal ground of Infants Baptiſm.

That Tradition hath principally been leaned upon, as the main ground of the Practice, you have the following Inſtances.

Auſtin Auſtin.tells us, That the Cuſtome of our Mother the Church in Baptizing little Infants, is not to be despiſed, nor to be judged ſuperfluous, nor to be believed at all, unleſs it were an Apoſtolical Tradition. Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23.

And again in his 4th Book againſt the Donatiſts, 24 Chap. ſaith, That if there be any that do inquire for a Divine Authority for the Baptizing of Children, Let them that know what the Univerſal Church holds, nor was inſtituted in Councils, but alwaies retained, is moſt rightly believed to have been delivered by no other than Apoſtolical Authority.

Chryſoſt.Chryſoſtom ſaith, That Infants ought to be baptized, as univerſally received by the Catholick Church, to take away Original Sin. Mag. Cent. 4.

p. 153Bellarmine, Tom. 1. L. 4. c. 2. ſaith, That the Baptiſm of Infants is an Apoſtolical Tradition not written; becauſe, ſaith he, it is not written in any Apoſtolical Book though written, he ſaith, in the Books of almoſt all the Antients.

And which Tradition of the Apoſtles, ſaith he, is of no leſs Authority with us, than the Scriptures.

In the Council of Trent, Council of Trent.after they had in the 5th and 7th Seſſions made thoſe Canons about Infants-Baptiſm, before mentioned, do conclude, That their Traditions, touching the ſame, ſhould be received, Pari Pietatis affectu, with the ſame pious affection with the Holy Scriptures, as you have it, p. 144.

In the Council of Baſil, Council of Baſil.in the Oration of the Cardinal of Raguſi, It is aſſerted, That in the beginning of this Sacrament of Baptiſm, they only were to be baptized, who could by themſelves anſwer Interrogatories concerning their Faith; And that it was no where read in the Canon of Scripture, that a new-born Infant was baptized, who could neither believe with the Heart to Juſtification, nor confeſs with the Mouth to Salvation. Yet nevertheleſs, ſaith he, the Church hath appointed it.

p. 154Eckius Eck us.againſt the Lutherans writes, That the Ordinance concerning the Baptiſm of Children is without Scripture, and is found to be only a Cuſtome of the Church. And in his Enchiridion calleth it a Commandment and Ordinance of Man, and that it is not to be proved out of the Holy Scriptures.

A great Papiſt, lately in London, going to a Diſpute about Infants-Baptiſm, told his friend, He was going to hear a Miracle, viz. Infants Baptiſm to be proved by Scripture.

And the Ground and Reaſon why they do ſo firmly own this Truth to the Proteſtants upon that ſubject, is but the better to inforce and introduce their many other Traditions, there being nothing elſe for that.

But whereas ſome object, That Bellarmine and others do alſo bring Scripture for it, Becan. Bec…n.Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. anſwers, That ſome things may be proved out of Scripture, when the Churches ſence is firſt heard about the Interpretation thereof, for ſo, he ſaith, it is concerning Infants Baptiſm, which is proved from John 3.5. Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit, &c. But the ſenſe whereby to prove it, it only manifeſt p. 155by Tradition. And it is confirmed in the Canon Law and Schoolmen, That Infants-Baptiſm was not reckoned perfect, till the Biſhop laid on hands, which was called Confirmation, viz. of the imperfect Baptiſm in Infancy: and therefore ſaith Caiſtans Caiſtans.ſecundum Jewel, That an Infant wanting Inſtruction in the Faith, hath not perfect Baptiſm, Tom. prec. p. 86. Dr. Field, Dr. Field.Lib. 4. P. 375. ſaith, That Infants-Baptiſm is therefore called a Tradition, becauſe it is not expreſly delivered in the Scriptures, that the Apoſtles did baptiſe Infants, or that they ſhould do ſo.

The Oxford DivinesOxford Divines. in a full Convocation, Jan. 1647. ſay, That without the conſentaneous judgment and practice of the Univerſal Church, they ſhould be at a l…ſs, when they are called upon for proof in the point of Baptizing Infants, Mr. Tombes.

Dr. Prideaux Dr. Prid….Controv. Theol. Sec. 392. Infants Baptiſm (ſaith he) reſts upon no other Divine right than Epiſcopacy, viz. Dioceſan Epiſcopacy, in uſe in theſe Nations.

Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter.in Defence of the Principles of Love, p. 7. ſaith, That the Anabaptiſts are Godly men, that differ p. 156from us in a Point ſo difficult, that many of the Papiſts and Prelatiſts have maintained, That it is not determined in Scripture, but dependeth upon the Tradition of the Church. (Though, he ſaith, he is of another mind himſelf.)

To which many more might be added, to prove to you, That Apoſtolical Tradition, for want of Scripture, hath been urged as the principal and firſt ground of this Practice. And not only for this, but for all other Rites and Ceremonies, as well thoſe that have been already declared; as Chryſme, Exorciſme, Conſignation, and innumerable more, as thoſe that have not yet been heard of or declared: for as a late learned. Author excellently obſerves, That the Papiſts, Dr. Owenin point of Tradition, do herein very much exceed the Jews, thoſe old Tradition-mongers, who ſo made void the Law of God in their days by it. For they tell us plainly, that now their whole Oral Law is written, and that they have no reſerve of Authentick Traditions not yet decla…r'd: But here the Romaniſts, ſaith he, fail us, for although, they have given us heaps upon heaps of their Traditions, yet they plead that they have ſtill an inexhauſtible treaſure p. 157of them laid up in their Church-ſtores, &… breaſt of their Holy Father, to be drawn forth at all times, as occaſion ſhall require. And which Principle hath been the means of their Apoſtacy, and is the great Engin, whereby they are rendered incurable therein. Dr. Owen his Proleg. P. 67.

Dr. Taylor, D. TaylorP. 237. argues ſo fully and ſtrenuouſly upon this point of Tradition, that I cannot paſs him by, who ſaith, Tradition by all means muſt ſupply the place of Scripture, and there is pretended a Tradition Apoſtolical, that Infants were baptized. But at this (ſaith he) we are not much moved, For we who rely upon the written Word of God, as ſufficient to eſtabliſh all true Religion, do not value the allegation of Tradition: And however the world goes, none of the Reformed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion: Becauſe they who reject Tradition, when it is againſt them, muſt not pretend it in the leaſt for them; but if we allow the Topick to be good, yet how will it be verified? For ſo far as can yet appear, it relies wholly upon the Teſtimony of Origen, for from him Auſtin had it. Now a Tradition Apoſtolical, if it be p. 158not conſigned with a fuller teſtimony than of one perſon, whom all other Ages have condemned of many Errors, and whoſ, works, ſaith Eraſmus, are ſo ſpurious that he that reads them is uncertain, whether he read Origen or Ruffinus. Therefore will obtain ſo little reputation amongſt thoſe, who know that things have upon greater Authority, been pretended to be received from the Apoſtles, but falſly; that it will be a great Argument, that he is ridiculous and weak, that ſhall be determined by ſo weak Probation in matters of ſo great concernment. But beſides that the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apoſtolical, we have very good evidence from Antiquity, That it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church, That Infants ought not to be Baptized, which, ſaith he, is clear in the Canon of the Council of Neocaeſarca, which he mentions at large in the original Greek; Determining that none ought to be baptized, without giving an account of their Faith, and deſiring the ſame. That tie Traditons for Inf. Bapt. are fabulous.Thus far Dr. Taylor.

In the next place we ſhall give you ſome account of the inſufficiency and weakneſs, if not the wickedneſs of thoſe firſt Authorities, that have been leaned p. 159upon to prove this Practice to be an Apoſtolical Tradition, and which appearing fabulous, all others depending upon the ſame, neceſſarily fall to the ground; whereof you have four or five of the principal of them, and which may be uſeful to the Proteſtants, whatever they are to the Papiſts, viz.

The firſt and earlieſt we meet with to prove Infants-Baptiſm to be an Apoſtolical Tradition, is that of Dyoniſius the Ar…opagite, mentioned already P. 109. & quoted by Bellarmin, Tom. 3. Lib. 8. Caſſander in his Book de Bapt. and many other learned Papiſts, for Authentick proof that Infants-Baptiſm was Apoſtolical, out of his Eccleſiaſtical Hi…rarchy, &c. But that this was a piece of Forgery put upon the world, may yet further more fully appear to you in that which followeth, viz.

This Dionyſius the Areopagite living at Athens, Dionyſius Areopag.who ſome will have to be Biſhop of Corinth, though Euſebius calls him Biſhop of Athens (for you muſt know, according to Euſebius and Dorotheus, all men of Name in the New Teſtament, muſt be Biſhops of ſome place or other, and therefore they can tell you, not only the Names of the p. 160ſeventy Diſciples, but what Biſhopricks each did belong unto.) Now this Perſon being an Athenian, muſt be ſuppoſed to be a learned Greek Philoſopher, and therefore upon none more fitly in this Age could be fathered all thoſe Philoſophical Tracts that are put upon him; and amongſt which you have two of moſt eminency, viz. his Hierarchy of Angels, wherein you have the Orders, Ranks, Dignities, Names, and Offices of the Angels and Archangels (a profound piece no doubt.)

The other his Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, wherein the Conſecrations, Orders, Offices and Ranks of the Inferiour Angels, viz. the Prieſts, Friers, Monks, Biſhops, Arch-biſhops, and Popes are methodically treated and handled, as alſo divers Rites and Ceremonies diſcuſſed, amongſt which that of Infants-Baptiſm is aſſerted to be an antient Apoſtolical Tradition, which he declares he received from his Prafectors, together with various Ceremonies, that according to like Apoſtolick Authority, are confirmed as an Appendix thereto, viz. Goſſips, or Sureties; Chryſme, or the Anointing Cream; Exorciſme or Sufflation, viz. a blowing uſed in Baptiſme, p. 161whereby the Devil was to be blown away; Conſignation, or the ſigning the baptized with the Sign of the Croſs; Confirmation, or Biſhoping the Baptized Children, afterwards, to compleat his imperfect Baptiſm by laying on of Hands, Albes or white Garments for the Baptiſed, Baptiſterions, or large Fonts to be placed in the Temples, Altars alſo for the Euchariſt, and ſeveral other things, which he affirms to have been in uſe in the Apoſtles days.

And this is one of the firſt Authorities that Father Bellarmine and others of them give us, for the proof of this Apoſtolical Inſtitution, and which muſt be received with equal Authority to the Holy Scriptures (and a very convincing one no doubt) concerning which, though if there was nothing but the bare Repetition thereof, it may ſufficiently detect the Cheat; the lies being ſo groſs, ſo ill made, and laid together, that every common underſtanding may eaſily perceive the juggle; For how abſurdly ridiculous is it to ſay, that Paul or his Praefectors ſhould acquaint him, that it was an antient Apoſtolical Tradition; if it had been true, Paul might have told him it had been new, p. 162but by no means in thoſe days an old Apoſtolical Tradition. And to tell the world of Baptiſterions and Altars in Temples, when no ſuch things as Temples for Chriſtian Worſhip, for above 200. years after. And alſo of thoſe other impious fooleries, that were not known nor heard of for ſome Ages after, ſo ſtrangely, by Gods Providence, were they infatuated, to come forth with ſuch ridiculous madneſs to detect their own folly: And to teſtifie that this was to be that Intereſt that ſhould appear with all deceivableneſs of Unrighteouſneſs.

Which horrid Cheat you have very convincingly diſcovered and detected by many Learned Men; & beſides thoſe already mentioned Page. 110 in the firſt Chapter, You have he Magdiburgenſes, Cent. 1. L. 2. p. 625, 626. and Cent. 4. p. 420, 554, and 1129. Alſo by Perkins, Reynolds, Rivet, proving by many Arguments it was wholly ſpurious and ſuppoſititious, and that it could not, from many conſiderations, be written by the ingenuous Contriver, till the fourth or fifth Century, that none of the Church-writer, in thoſe times took any notice of it, and p. 163that Auſtin himſelf went not higher than Origen, And which wretched Forgery is excellently detected in 39 Arguments by the Learned Dailly, a late renowned Proteſtant-writer in France, in his Book called de Scriptis.

A Second Proof leaned upon to verifie the truth of its Apoſtolicalneſs, is that of Juſtin Juſtin.Martyrs Martyr.Responſes, Reſponſes.eſpecially to the 56 Queſtions before mentioned, Page 111. and Chap. 2. which many of the aforeſaid Authors do learnedly detect to be spurious alſo, as Perkins, Rivet and others, yea and many of the very Papiſts themſelves do diſown the ſame as ridiculous, foraſmuch as Origen and the Manichees are mentioned therein, that were not in being for ſo long time after. And concerning which Responſes, M. BaxterMr. Baxter himſelf, in his plain Scripture proof, P. 155. is pleaſed to tell us, That as to that of Juſtin Martyrs to the 56^th Queſtion, He would not inſiſt upon it, becauſe though the place be moſt expreſs for Infants Baptiſm, (for when the Friars hand was in, he could do it to a hairs breadth) and the Book antient, yet that it was either spurious or interpolate.

A Third antient Proof urged in p. 164Confirmation hereof, is the Decretals and Inſtitutions of ſeveral Popes in this 2^d Cent. viz. Pope Clement P. Clem.for Chryſm, Conſignation, and Confirmation. Secondly, Pope Hyginus P. Huginus.for Goſſips, Chryſm, and Dedication of Churches, upon whoſe Authority Mr. Baxter layes ſo much ſtreſs, that he Prints it in the front of his Scripture-proofs, amongſt other of the Antients, and boaſtingly calls for as good proof from Antiquity againſt Infants-baptiſme, concluding that Goſſips could not be but for Infants-baptiſm: Though the words out of Gracian, as L. Oſiander gives them, are otherwiſe, Cent. 2. L. 2. C. 5. viz. In Catechiſme, in Baptiſme, and in Confirmation, if neceſſity require, there may be one Surety, (or Goſſip, as uſually rendred) Infants being not ſo much as mentioned, having it ſeems Goſſips (as hereafter you will find) in other Rites, as well as in Baptiſm; and for Men and Women, as well as Children.

Thirdly, Pope Victor P. Victor.for confining Baptiſm to Eaſter. Fourthly, Pope Pius P. Pius.for Baptiſteri…ns; The ſpuriouſneſ of all which Decretals is learnedly by Oſiander, Perkins, Rivet, &c. detected. And to whom I ſhall adde what I p. 165find in Mr. Fox Mr. Fox.in his Martyrology, Vol. 1. P. 75. who ſpeaking of theſe Decretals, ſaith judiciouſly, if not prophetically, viz. Moſt lamentable it is, that the falſifying of ſuch trifling Traditions, under the falſe pretences of Antiquity, either was begun in the Church to deceive the People, or that it hath remained ſo long undetected: For (ſaith he) I think the Church of God will never be perfectly reformed, before theſe Decretal Conſtitutions and Epiſtles, which have ſo long put on the vizard of Antiquity, ſhall be fully detected, and appear in their colours, wherein they were firſt painted.

And concerning which the Magdiburgenſes Magdib.very excellently, Cent. 2. p. 111. That if it ſhould be taken for granted, that all this was true, as is expreſſed in theſe Decretals of theſe Roman Biſhops, then what could be more certain than that even now the Myſtery of Iniquity began to work in the Church of Rome, in their ſo corrupting and contaminating the ſimple Form of Baptiſm, concerning which nothing is ſo much as mentioned of in any other Church.

The next Teſtimony that is alledged for Authentick proof in the Caſe, is p. 166that of Origen in the Third Century,Origen's Teſtimony examined. and of which there is ſo much ſtreſs laid by Auſtin and others, for from him, ſaith Dr. Taylor, he only had his proof of Apoſtolick Tradition, for as yet, it ſeems, the former Teſtimonies had not ſeen the Sun; his words are theſe, taken out of his fifth Book in his Homilies upon the ſixth Chap. of the Rom. viz. The Church received a Tradition from the Apoſtles, to give Baptiſm to Children.

But whether this Teſtimony ought any more to be regarded than the former, let theſe following Conſiderations determine:

1. Origen a ſingle Teſtimony.And firſt it is to be conſidered, that if this was Origen's own, as it is aſſerted out of his ſuppoſed Homelies upon Lev. & the Rom. (it being mentioned in both) yet that is but one ſingle Teſtimony in the Caſe, as Dr. Tayler well obſerves before, and that againſt ſo much poſitive witneſs to the contrary, who with one mouth do teſtify, that none but the Adult were either in the Apoſtles times, or the next Centuries after, baptiſed.

2. Origen very corrupt.Secondly, His writings, or at leaſt thoſe that are fathered upon him, are p. 167ſo notoriouſly corrupt and erroneous, as the Magdiburgenſes do affirm in Cent. 3. P. 262, 263, &c. and whereof they give ſeveral inſtances, viz. That he was not only very Heretical and blaſphemous about Chriſt, aſſerting two Chriſts, and denying his Godhead, who was (as Epiphanius ſaith) the very Head of the Arrians; but as Jerome ſaith, holding very deſperately about the Spirit, and very corruptly about Angels, Devils, Creation, Providence, Original Sin, Church-Government, and the Reſurrection, a fearful Allegoriſer of Scripture, but deſperately Erroneous about Baptiſme it ſelf, viz. Firſt, That the very Act it ſelf of Baptizing in Water, merits the Spirit. Secondly, That in that very Act, all Sin is taken away. Thirdly, That it enables to keep the whole Law. Fourthly, That there is to be a Baptiſme after the Reſurrection, to purge away Sin: And that the Baptized ought to be ſigned with the Sign of the Croſs: And upon the 5th of Math. ſaith, Peter by promiſe ought to be the Foundation of the Church: and upon Luke 17. That Peter was the Prince of the Apoſtles. Whoſe Writings therefore, (for a great p. 168part of them) for their Corruption, were impugned and rejected by Jerome and others; yea, and not only by ſeveral of the Greek Fathers, as Alexandrinus, Epiphanius, Theophilus, Cyrenus and others, but by ſome Greek Councils too, as appears by the Magd. Euſebius, and others: So that we may ſay of Origen, if theſe indeed were his own, as the Magdiburgenſ. ſay of the former Decretals, That they beſpoke him an early Factor for Antichriſt, and that the Myſtery of Iniquity did work ſtrongly in him; But what appears in the next Conſideration, may give us to hope better of him.

Origen's Homeiies upon Lev. and Rom. ſpurious.But Thirdly, and more eſpecially, It is to be obſerved, That many of Origen's Works fell into ill hands, and particularly thoſe Homelies of Levit. and the Romans, if indeed there were any ſuch, which Mr. Perkins and others doubt, becauſe no Greek Copies thereof have been extant, and of which Voſſius in his Book De Baptiſ. ſaith, Sed de Origene minus laborabimus, quia quae citabimus Graece non extant. There being only a corrupt Latin piece, called a Tranſlation of Ruffinus, who ingenuouſly confeſſeth, that p. 169he took ſo much liberty in his Tranſlation, as to adde and alter at his pleaſure; which gives Eraſmus ſo much occaſion to ſay, That you know not when you read Origen, and when Ruffinus. And therefore are thoſe Homilies rejected as ſpurious, and put by Perkins and others amongſt his counterfeit Works: And well they may, if you conſider the Story the Magdiburgs tell us of this Ruffinus, and his way of Tranſlation and Writing, of which, I ſhall take the freedome to give you a brief account, as I find it in Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1201, &c. That you may better underſtand what trade was driven of this kind, and what fine Merchants we have to deal with about this Romiſh traſh.

This Ruffinus, you muſt know,Th… Hiſtory of …uffinus and his F…rge…ies. lived about the latter end of the 4. Century, who was an Italian M…nk of Aquila, a wicked, though wi…ty, learned Man, who went away with a famous Roman Cu…tizan into Aſia, and ſojourned at Jeruſalem with her above thirty years; at firſt a great friend and companion of Jerome's, but afterwards when Jerome diſcovered his wickedneſs, eſpecially in his abuſing Origen's Works, p. 170many whereof he tranſlated out of Greek into Latin, ſophiſticating them at his pleaſure, and for which, and for ſeveral baſtardy pieces he brought forth, Jerome, Anaſtaſius, and others write ſeveral pieces to detect and reprove him. Several corrupt Heretical Treatiſes he wrote, and fathered upon others, viz. One containing divers corrupt Tenents of Origen, he fathered upon Pamphilia a Martyr, who lived about the Third Century, the better to put it off in the Martyrs name; Another Book of one Xyſtus a Pythagorean, which he fathered upon a Roman Biſhop and Martyr; ſeve…al Homilies upon J ſhua, which he fathered upon another eminent Perſon; A Book of the Lives of the Monks of Baſil, a feigned piece; and another Book of Monks, innumerating a Multitude, as Jerome ſaith, that …ever were, and fathering Origen's Errors upon thoſe that were. He made a corrupt, vicious Tranſlation of Joſephus, as diſcovered by Gallenius that w…s more faithful therein; he added two lying pieces to the Hiſtory of Euſebius from Conſtantine to the Death of Theodoſius, which Socrates reproves; p. 171and he wrote another frivolous Book of Jacobs bleſſing the Patriarchs, and an Explanation thereof.

By whoſe Impoſtures of this kind, you may diſcern what ſtuff was forged at the Antichriſtian Anvil, and particularly what Credit is to be given to this Mans Works.

Another Traditional Teſtimony, greatly boaſted of, is that of Cyprian, Cyprians Evidence tryed.about the middle of the third Century, in that his Epiſtle, ſaid to be writ to one Fidus a Prieſt, wherein he declares his own and the judgment, as 'tis ſaid, of Sixty ſix African Biſhops, That Children ſhould be baptized, as well before as after the Eigth day, with the Reaſons and Grounds thereof, as at large expreſt in the Epiſtle, viz. From the extent of Gods Grace and Salvation tendered to all, even the greateſt of Sinners, therefore that Children ſhould be baptized. Concerning which teſtimony of Cyprian, there are theſe things to be conſidered.

Firſt, That he doth not urge the Practice of it from any Ap…ſtolical Tradition or Prece…t, but fr…m his own and Biſhops Arguments (ſuch as they are) to enforce the ſame: And truly, p. 172if he had aſſerted it to have been an Apoſtolical Tradition, his word would no ſooner have been taken, than when he tells us that Chryſme was ſo.

Secondly, Becauſe there is good ground to queſtion, whether this was Cyprian's and ſixty ſix Biſhops, Concluſion. Firſt, Becauſe we meet with no ſuch Council, neither can it appear where it was held: and if Auſtin's Argument before-mentioned be good to prove it an Apoſtolical Tradition, becauſe no Council had determined it, it concludes againſt any ſuch Council. Secondly, That the grounds upon which the Concluſion is grounded, are ſo weak and frivolous. Thirdly, Becauſe it was a Doctrine ſo much contradicted by his great Maſter Tertullian, whom he ſo much reverenced. And therefore if you will believe Baronius, Tom. 1. p 415. Cyprian was not for Infants-Baptiſm, as Mr. Blackwood obſerves. Fourthly, Becauſe other things have been fathered upon him, which were not his, as a piece called, De Cardinalibus Operibus Chriſti, by an Abbot in France, as Dailly demonſtrates in his Book De Scriptis. p. 466. c. 39. L. 2.

CyprianBut if his own, there is as little cauſe p. 173to receive it as other corrupt and Antichriſtian Tenents,very corrupt. that are found in his Writings, and ſaid to be his, viz. That the Church of Rome is the Mother Church. That there ought to be one High Prieſt over the Church: And the Principle Church is Peters-chair, from whence the Unity of the Prieſthood ariſeth; And that upon Peter the Church is founded, with much more ſuch ſtuff, which the Magdiburgenſes have collected out of his Book, called De Ordine in Eccleſia, Cent. 3. c. 4. p. 84. A violent impugner of Prieſts Marriages, p. 86. In his Sermon of Almes concludes, That Sins committed after Baptiſm were done away by Alms and good Works, p. 80. And again, That as Water extinguiſheth Fire, ſo doth Almes extinguiſh Sin, p. 81.

And concerning Baptiſm it ſelf very abſurdly corrupt, Saying, That the Water ought firſt to be Conſecrated by a Prieſt, to make it more efficacious to take away Sin. That the Perſon baptizing conferred the Holy Spirit, and the baptized was inwardly ſanctified thereby. That Chryſme, or anointing the baptized, was abſolutely neceſſary, page 82.

p. 174That Exorciſmes were alſo neceſſary to drive away the Devil; That Baptiſm ſhould be done in Temples, and that the Kiſs ſhould be given by the Prieſt to the Baptized Infant, and that Sprinkling might ſerve inſtead of Dipping, p. 125.

By all which you may underſtand, that either Cyprian had been vilely Ruffined, and theſe things Fathered upon him, or that he himſelf was a notable Factor for Antichriſt, and that in him the Myſtery of Iniquity did very ſtrongly work.

But we would rather believe, That theſe things were foiſted into his Writings by that villanous curſed Generation, that ſo horribly abuſed the Writings of moſt of the antient Writers, as appears by the Index Expurgatorius, and who durſt venture upon any Forgery, how impious ſoever, for the benefit of the Holy Church, witneſs that impudent Fable, as Oſiander calls it, of the Baptiſm of Conſtantine, before mentioned, in the fourth Century, in the firſt Chap. 2. Part.

Thus you have the Principal Authorities urged for Apoſtolical Tradition, proved forged and fabulous; and p. 175what doth more refute that fond conceit of the uninterrupted Tradition, ſo much boaſted of, to prove this Practice, than the Teſtimony Juſtin Martyr gives, That the Believers were in his days the only ſubjects of Baptiſm. And the witneſs Tertull, gives againſt Infants-Bapt. in the third Century, & the advice that Nazianzen gives to defer it; The Decrees of ſo many Councils to that purpoſe, and eſpecially ſo many eminent Chriſtians in the fourth Century that did not baptize their Children, till they could give an account of their Faith, as hath been before ſo learnedly obſerved by Dailly, Grotius, Dr. B. Dr. Tayler and others, and which I humbly conceive, are unanſwerable Arguments againſt it.

But 'tis ſaid, Object. That by Tertullians oppoſing it, it may ſeem that there were ſome that practiſed it in the third Century, and can it be ſuppoſed that any did ſo, except it had been warranted by ſuch Apoſtolical Tradition?

It is granted,A…ſwer. Tertullian did oppoſe it. But who it was that aſſerted it, and whether upon any ſuch account, as ſuppoſed, is not mentioned; if any do affirm, it will be on their part to prove p. 176the one and the other, The Magdiburgenſes and others, as you have heard, do tell us, That they meet with no instance of any that either practiſed this or any other of theſe Inventions fathered alſo upon Apostolical Tradition, as Chryſme, Exorciſme, Conſignation, &c. in that Age. But 'tis ſaid, If they did, it would demonſtrate, eſpecially in the practice of the latter, That the Myſtery of Iniquity did then begin to work, in ſo corrupting that Ordinance of Chriſt, and had they not as good ground to do the one as the other?

Whereby that word of Prophecy 2 Theſ. 3. concerning the taking place of that Myſtery of Iniquity was ſo much fulfilled, which was to come on with all Deceivableneſs of Unrighteouſneſs, and with ſtrong Deluſions to believe Lies; and which in nothing more appears than in this very thing, having not only forged ſo many Lyes about it, but impoſed their Lyes to be believed by others. As their Forefathers, the Prieſts of old, that hired the Soldiers to tell a Lye about the Body of Chriſt, and then impoſed, that their Lye to be believed, to delude others, Mat. 28.12, 13, 14, 15. p. 177The conſideration whereof may, I hope, be of uſe to Proteſtants, though as to the hardened and deluded Papiſts they are, as well obſerved before, utterly incurable herein.

In the next place we come to examine the Scripture-grounds urged for the practice, and to evince,Scripture grounds for Infants Baptiſm examined. That they have been no leſs miſtaken in their Scriptural, than in their Eccleſiaſtical Author…ties to found it upon, whereof we ſhall give you an account of ſome of the principal, and leave you to judg of the reſt.

1The Firſt we ſhall mention, is that which was called (of old) the Scripture-Canon for Infants-Baptiſm, and upon which much ſtreſs hath been laid ſince to prove the ſame, viz. Mat. 19.14.Mat. 19.14.Matt 19:14 Suffer little Children to come to me, and forbid them not, for to ſuch belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. But may we not well ſay, How doth Baptiſm come to be concerned in this Text, except it can be made out, That bleſſing was baptizing. D. TaylerAnd to which Dr. Tayler hath ſpoken ſo fully for us, that I need ſay no more, p. 230. Who ſaith. From the Action of Chriſt's bleſſing Infants, to infer, that they were baptized, proves nothing ſo much, as that there is a want of better Arguments: For the Concluſion would, with more probability, be derived thus; Chriſt bleſſed Children, and ſo diſmiſſed them, but baptized them not, therefore Infants are not to be baptized. But let this be as weak as its enemy, Yet that Chriſt did not baptize them, is an Argument ſufficient, that he hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven than by Baptiſme; He paſſed an Act of Grace upon them by Benediction and Impoſition of Hands. And therefore, although neither Infants, nor any Man, in puris Naturalibus, can attain to a ſupernatural end, without the addition of ſome Inſtrument, or means of Gods appointing, ordinarily and regularly, yet where God hath not appointed a Rule, nor an Order, as in the Caſe of Infants, we contend he hath not, the Argument is invalid.

And as we are ſure God hath not commanded Infants to be baptized, ſo we are ſure God will do them no injuſtice, nor damn them for what they cannot help; viz. If the Parent baptize them not.

Many 1000 ways there are, by which God can bring any reaſonable ſoul to him, but nothing is more unreaſonable than p. 179becauſe he hath tyed all men of years and diſcretion to this way, Therefore we of our own heads ſhall carry Infants to him that way, without his direction: The conceit is poor and low, and the action conſequent to it, is bold and venturous. Let him do what he pleaſes with Infants, we muſt not.

2A Second Scripture that hath been much leaned upon, is that of Joh. 3.5.Joh. 3.5.John 3:5 Except a man be born of Water and the Spirit, he can in no wiſe enter into the Kingdom of God. From whence it is concluded, that there is no other way to regenerate and ſave Infants, and add them to the Church, but by Baptiſm; and therefore have they baptized them, as the Canons and Decretals of Popes, and the Opinions of the Antients do demonſtrate.

But the Conſequences drawn from hence, to infer the Baptizing and Saving of Infants, ſavours of ſo much Ignorance and Popiſh Darkneſs, that we need ſay little to it; for ſince the Reformation, moſt of the Proteſtants have proteſted againſt this as erroneous; Yet for the ſake of others that yet cleave to it, ſaying, That in Analogy hereto, Children are hereby made p. 180Members of Chriſt, Children of God, and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven, I ſhall refer them to Biſhop Tayler for Solution, whoſe words will have more weight than any thing I can ſay in the Caſe, who in p. 231. Calls ſuch a ſence of the words, a prevaricating of Chriſt's Precepts. For, ſaith he, the Water and Spirit in this place, ſignifie the ſame thing, and by Water is meant the effect of the Spirit, cleanſing and purifying the Soul, as it appears in its parallel place of Chriſt's B…p izing with the Spirit and with Fire: For although this was litterally fulfilled in the day of Pentecoſt, yet mor…lly there is more in it, for it is the Sign of the effect of the Holy Ghoſt and his productions upon the Soul: And you may as well conclude, that Infants muſt alſo paſs through the Fire, as through the Water. And that we may not think this a trick to elude the preſſure of this place, Peter ſaith the ſame thing. For where he had ſaid, That Baptiſm ſaves us, he adds by way of Explication (not the waſhing away of the filth of the Fleſh, but the anſwer of a good Conſcience towards God,) plainly ſaying, That it is not Water, or the purifying of the Body, but the cleanſing of p. 181the Spirit that doth that which is ſuppoſed to be the Effect of Baptiſme.

But to ſuppoſe it meant External Baptiſme, yet this no more infers a neceſſity of Infants Baptiſm, than the other words of Chriſt infer a necſſity to give them the holy Communion: Joh. 6.53. Except you eat the fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no life in you. And yet we do not think theſe words a ſufficient Argument to Communicate them. If men therefore will do us juſtice; either let them give both Sacraments to Infants, as ſome Ages of the Church did, or neither. For the wit of man is not able to ſhew a diſparity in the Sanction, or in the Energy of its expreſſion. And therefore they were honeſt that underſtood the Obligation to be parallel, and performed it accordingly; and yet becauſe we ſay they were deceived in one inſtance, and yet the Obligation (all the world cannot reaſonably ſay but) is the ſame, they are honest and as reaſonable that do neither: And ſure the Antient Church did, with an equal opinion of Neceſſity, give them the Communion, and yet men now adays do not, Why ſhould men be more burthened with a prejudice and a name of obliquity, p. 182for not giving the Infants one Sacrament more than you are diſliked, for not affording them the other? And farther, p. 242. If we muſt ſuppoſe Grace to be effected by the external work of the Sacrament alone, how doth this differ from the Opus operatum of the Papiſts, ſave that it is worſe; for they ſay the Sacrament do…h not produce its effects, but in a Suſcipient dispoſed by all Requiſi es and due Preparat…ves of Piety, Faith, and Repentance; though in a ſubject ſo diſpoſed, they ſay, the Sacrament by its own virtue doth it. But this opinion ſays, it doth it of it ſelf, without the help, or ſo much as the co-exiſtence of any condition, but the meer reception.

M. BaxterMr. Baxter to this point, p. 306. of his plain Scripture-proof, That Baptiſm in it ſelf can work no ſuch Cauſe, for the Water is not a ſubject capable of receiving Grace, or of conveighing it to the Soul, it cannot approach or touch the Soul, nor infuſe Grace into it if it could.

Ameſius in Bel. Enervat. Tom. 3. L. 2. c. 3. Outward Baptiſme, ſaith he, cannot be a Phyſical Inſtrument of the infuſing of Grace, becauſe it hath it not in any wiſe in it ſelf.

Zwingli.Zwinglius denieth Baptiſm of it ſelf p. 183worketh any Grace, or pardoneth Sin, or reneweth, as Tom. 2. p. 119, 120, 121.

Dr. Owen Dr. Owen.in his Theolog. l. 6 ch. 5. p. 477. upon the point, ſaith, That the Father of lies himſelf could not eaſilier have invented a more pernicious Opinion, or which might powre in a more deadly poiſon into the minds of Sinners.

3A Third Scripture inſiſted on, is the Commiſſion it ſelf, Mark 16.16, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved. Mar. 16.16Mark 16:16But Infants are Believers, Therefore according to the Comm…ſſion, they are to be baptized. In wh…ch though all Parties agree, yet how they do believe, and what faith this is, there is great confuſion and contradiction.

Viz. The Antients ſaid they had the Faith of the Sacrament, as Auſtin: The Papists the Faith of the Church; as Tho. Aquinas, which is intailed to all within the Pale thereof. The Lutherans ſay, they have a proper Faith, which they hotly deſended at the Conference with the Calviniſts at Montpelgart, and therefore Baptize all whether the Parents be good or ba…. The Calviniſts ſay, they have an imputative Faith from the Parent in Covenant, as Muſculus, Oecolampadius and others at that p. 184Conference maintained, and therefore baptize only the Children of Believers.

The Prelatick Proteſtants affirm, they have the Faith of the Goſſip or Surety, but none of their own, as the Com. Catechiſme tells us: Moſt of the Non Conformiſts do agree with the Calviniſts, that it is an imputative Faith from the Parent, or Pro-parent in Covenant. Mr. Baxter in his Right to Sacraments, as before, ſaith, They have a Juſtifying, and Mr. Blake his oppoſite allowes but a Dogmatical Faith; ſome ſay it is a Phyſical, ſome a Metaphyſical, and ſome a Hyperphyſical Faith; ſome ſaying, as before, that Baptiſme is an Instrument to conveigh real Grace to Infants; ſome ſay to all, as Mr. Bedford and others; ſome only to the Elect, as Dr. Burgos: And thus you ſee they are not agreed in their Verdict, nor who ſhall ſpeak for them. But for an Anſwer hereto, I ſhal again refer you to Dr. Tayler, D. Taylerp. 240. ſpeaking ſo much my mind, and the truth herein, ſaith he, Whether Infants have Faith or no, is a Queſtion to be diſputed by perſons that care not how much they ſay, and how little they prove.

Firſt. Perſonal and Actual Faith they p. 185have none, for they have no acts of Understanding; and beſides, how can any man know that they have, ſince he never ſaw any ſign of it, neither was he told ſo by any that cold tell? Secondly, Some ſay they have Imputative, but then ſo let the Sacrament be too, that is, if they have the Parents faith or the Churches, then ſo let Baptiſm be imputed alſo by deriuation from them, and as in their Mothers Womb, and while they hang on their Mothers Breaſts, they live upon their Mothers Nouriſhment: So they may upon the Baptiſm of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: For ſince Faith is neceſſary to the ſuſception of Baptiſme (and they themſelves confeſs it by ſtriving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the matter up) ſuch as the Faith, ſuch muſt be the Sacrament: for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament, and an imputative Faith; this being in immediate and neceſſary order to that. And whatſoever can be ſaid to take off from the neceſſity of Actual Faith, all that and much more may be ſaid to excuſe from the actual ſuſception of Baptiſme. The firſt of theſe devices was that of Luther and his Scholars; the ſecond of Calvin and his, and yet p. 186there is a third Device, which the Church of Rome teaches, and that is, that Infants have habitual Faith; but who told them ſo? How can they prove it? What Revelation or Reaſon teacheth any ſuch thing? Are they by this habit ſo much as diſpoſed to an actual Belief, without a new Maſter? Can an Infant, ſent into a Mahumetan Province be more confident for Chriſtianity, when he comes to be a Man, than if he had not been baptized? Are there any Acts precedent, concomitant, or conſequent to this pretended Habit? This ſtrange Invention is abſolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reaſon, or Authority; But the Men are to be excuſed unleſs there were a better.

To which, ſaith he, this Conſideration may be added, That if Baptiſme be neceſſary to the Salvation of Infants (as the Fathers of old, and the Church of Roms and England ſince) upon whom is the impoſition laid? To whom is the Command given? To the Parents, or the Children? Not to the Parents, for then God hath put the Salvation of innocent Babes into the Power of others, and Infants may be damned for their Fathers careleſneſs or malice. It follows that it p. 187is not neceſſary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be preſcribed as a Law, and in whoſe behalf it cannot be reaſonably entruſted to others, with the appendent neceſſity; and if it be not neceſſary, it is certain it is not reaſonable, and moſt certain it is no where in terms preſcribed; and therefore it is preſumed that Baptiſm ought to be underſtood and adminiſtred according as other Precepts are with reference to the capacity of the ſubject, and the reaſonableneſs of the thing.

And again to this purpoſe, p. 242. And if any Man runs for ſuccour to that exploded Creſphugeton, that Infants have Faith, or any other inſpired Habit, of I know not what or how; we deſire no more advantage in the world, than that they are conſtrained to anſwer without Revelation, againſt Reaſon, common Senſe, and all the Experience in the World.

The Argum. from federal Holineſs examined.4. Argum. From Federal Holineſs examined.

The other Scriptures we ſhall ſpeak to, are thoſe that are ſuppoſed to hold cut a Covenant-Right to the Children of Believers, and from whence Arguments are drawn for the Baptizing of them, which are principally, 1 Cor. 7.14. Gen. 17.7. compared Rom. 4.11. and Acts 2.39. From whence it is p. 188aſſerted, That the Children of Believers being a holy Seed, and in Covenant, that to them therefore belong the Seals of the Covenant, which we ſhall examine with care and circumſpection; ſo much ſtreſs being laid thereon. And as previous to our Anſwer thereto, ſhall in the fir place take notice, that this way of arguing hath been the new way, which ſince the Reformation hath been taken up to prove Infants-Baptiſm by.

Antiquity of the Argum. from Federal Holineſs.For when the unſoundneſs and rotteneſs of the antient ground of Infants-Baptiſme appeared, they being loath to part with the Tradition, endeavoured to build it upon this new Foundation; for when it was diſcovered that Infants might be ſaved without Baptiſm, and that they were not damned if they died without it, and that the Sacrament did not give Grace by the bare work done, nor took not away Original Sin, it was high time to lay a new Foundation for it, or elſe it would have faln, therefore is this new way of Covenant-Holineſs found out, upon which our Congregational-Men, eſpecially both in Old as well as New-England ſeem to go, of which Zwinglius about 120 years ſince, foraſmuch as I can learn, was p. 189the firſt Founder, wherein he was ſingular from all that went before him. And which he ſeems himſelf to owne in his Book of Baptiſme, Tom. 2. Fol. 57. Saying, That all thoſe who have from the Apoſtles times written of Baptiſm, have not in a few things erred from the ſcope; he having it ſeems, found out a way freer from Error and Exception, than all the Tracts of the Antients.

Having obſerved to you the Antiquity of this new Foundation, we ſhall in the next place weigh and conſider the Arguments themſelves.

The Firſt and chiefeſt is from 1 Cor. 7.14. Elſe were your Children unclean, The Arguments from Foederal-holineſs examined. 1 Cor. 7.4.1 Cor 7:4but now are they holy. From whence this Argument is raiſed,

That they who are holy with a Covenant-holineſs, may be baptized: But the Infants of Believers are holy with a Covenant-holineſs, for it is ſaid in the Text, but now are they holy; therefore they may be baptized.

In which Argument we have theſe two things aſſerted, but not at all proved. Firſt, that the holineſs in the Text is a federal, or Covenant holineſs. Secondly, That Federal or Covenant holineſs qualifies Infants for Baptiſm. Both which are poſitively denied upon the following Grounds.

p. 190Firſt, Becauſe the Holineſs in the Text, be it what it will, whether Moral, Federal, or Matrimonial, is neither here, or elſwhere, aſſigned to be a ground of baptizing Children upon; it being only the ground laid down in the Inſtitution that can warrant the ſame.

The Female, as well as the Male Children, under the Law, had all of them a Legal or Federal Holineſs, yet muſt none of them be Circumciſed, becauſe God had not ſo ordained; And for twenty Generations before the Law, Circumciſion was neither adminiſtred to Male or Female for the like Reaſon. It being Gods Word only, not our Reaſon, or the Inventions or Perſuaſions of Learned Men that can warrant our practice in Gods Ordinances. That Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance is a ſubſtantial ground to Baptize upon, is undeniably proved from Scripture, and conſented to by themſelves. But that foederal Holineſs, or any other Qualification in Infants, is any Scriptural ground for the ſame, is yet to be proved, this Text being altogether ſilent herein.

But Secondly. If it ſhould be granted that Federal Holineſs was a ground to p. 191baptize Children upon under the Goſpel, as it was to circumciſe them under the Law, which muſt not be owned by any means. Yet from ſubſtantial Arguments it will appear, that no ſuch Holineſs is intended here.

Firſt, No ſuch Federal Holineſs in the N. T.Becauſe there is no ſuch Holineſs in the New Teſtament, as a federal Holineſs belonging to Children, That becauſe the Parents are Believers, and in the New Covenant, their Natural Seed muſt therefore be ſo eſteemed, and have the like right thereby to the Evangelical, as the Children under the Law had to the Legal Ordinances; which, as no where to be found, ſo not to be admitted upon the following Conſiderations.

1. Becauſe it contradicts the Gospel Diſpenſation as before.

2. Becauſe ſuch apprehenſions intails Grace to Nature, Regeneration to Generation; in contradiction to that of our Saviour, John 3. That which is born of the fleſh, is fl…ſh. And that we are all the Children of wrath by Nature, Eph. 2.

3. Becauſe it contradicts all the experience, both of former and latter p. 192times, wherein Godly Men have had Wicked Children, and wicked Men good Children; as Abraham had an Iſhmael, Iſaac an Eſau, David an Abſolom; and on the contrary wicked Ahaz begat good Hezekiah, wicked Abia good Aſa, wicked Amon good Joſia.

4. Becauſe it neceſſitates an owning the Doctrine of Falling from Grace.

2. The Text intends an other Holineſs, viz Matrimonial.Secondly, Becauſe the Text intends another Holineſs, viz. A Civil or Matrimonial Holineſs in oppoſition to Fornication, Uncleanneſs, Baſtardy. And which doth fully appear,

Firſt, From the Scope of the place; The Queſtion propounded by the Believing Corinthians for Solution was,1. From the ſcope of the place. Whether their new Spiritual Relation to Chriſt, in the Goſpel, did not diſſolve their Carnal Relation entered into in Unbelief; and whether they could, without defilement, maintain their Converſe without Sin any more than they could in Ezra and Nehemiah's time?

To which the Apoſtle replies, That the Civil Relation, before orderly entered into, was clean now, as before; The unbelieving Huſband is as much clean and ſanctified to his believing Wife; and that ſhe might as freely converſe with …im in the Conjugal State now as before the Spiritual difference happened betwixt them. For Religion breaks no Bands nor Civil Contracts, They being as true Man and Wife as before the Marriage, as Honourable as before. And therefore the Apoſtle p. 193adviſeth that they ſhould abide in the ſtate and Calling, Religion findeth them in, Ver. 20. And that by no means the believer ſhould depart, and upon that account break the Relation, but that he ſhould maintain his Civil, in expectation of gaining her over to a ſpiritual Relation. And in confirmation hereof brings an Argument ab abſurdo; for otherwiſe the Children that they had together would be unclean, viz. if they ſhould depart from their Relations from the unlawfulneſs of the Marrage, and uncleanneſs of the bed, what would they make their Children but Baſtards, or unclean. But in as much as they had no queſtion of their legitimacy or holineſs; neither had they any cauſe to ſcruple the other. And farther alſo, the believer had the leaſt ground to doubt hereof, becauſe to him all lawfull things are clean, whether Husband, Wife, Child, Eſtate, &c. which is all the Holineſs I conceive can be meant in the Text agreeable to the Holineſs, 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4. & Mal. 2.15. the Baſtard being amongſt the unclean and unholy, Deut. 32.2. as Mr. Calvin upon Mal. 2.15. ſaith wtll, namely.

p. 194Calvin.Wherefore hath God made one? to wit ſeeking a Seed of God, a Seed of God is here taken for Legitimate, as the Hebrews do name that Divine, which is pure from any fault or spot, therefore he ſought a Seed of God, that is appointed Marriage from whence ſhould be born a Legitimate and pure Offspring; ſecretly therefore doth the Prophet here ſhew, that they are all Baſtards that ſhall be born by Poligamy; becauſe they neither can, nor ought to be accounted legitimate but they who are begotten according to Gods inſtitution; but where the Husband violates the faith given to the Wife, and takes to himſelf another, as he perverts the order of Marriage; ſo alſo he cannot be a lawfull father; thus Calvin.

2. The holineſs the ſame ſpoken to be in the unbeliever.A ſecond Argument, why it is a Holineſs of this kind, and not ſuch a faederal Holineſs as ſuggeſted; becauſe the Holineſs of the Children is of no other nature, then that ſpoke of the unbelieving Parent in the Text, and if one will intitle to the Ordinance ſo the other.

A third is from the conſideration that Children in the Text, is not to be limited to Infants, or ſuch Children that they might have ſince the Religious p. 195difference happened,3. Children not to be taken for Infants only. but of grown Children; for a Mans Child is his Child whilſt he lives, through 30, 40, or 50, years old; and we ſuppoſe it would be as abſurd to ſay, a Heatheniſh Son ſhould be baptized upon a faederal Holineſs, as to ſay the unbelieving Parent ſhould ſo be.

A fourth Argument,4. Ber. it cannot be known. why this cannot be a new Covenant-holineſs that muſt qualifie and intitle to Baptiſme; firſt, becauſe that cannot be known; for if the Parent profeſſing faith be a Hypocrite, and not in Covenant themſelves, then may you baptize a wrong ſubject as well as a right one.

And ſecondly, ſuch an abſurdity would follow, that no unbelievers Child is in Covenant or Elect, which is notoriouſly falſe; for as before Hezekiah was the Son of wicked Ahaz, and Aſa of Abia, and Joſia the Son of wicked Amon.

Thirdly from the concurrent Teſtimony and Confeſſion of many learned Commentators,3. From the confeſſion of Commentators upon the place. and parties themſelves.

p. 196Auſtin Auſtin.a great aſſerter of Infants Baptiſme, as before, ſaith hereupon. It is to be held without doubting, whatſoever that Sanctification was, it was not of power to make Chriſtians, and remit ſins.

Jerom ſaith, Becauſe of Gods appointment, Marriage is Holy.

Ambroſe Ambroſethus upon the place; The Children are Holy, becauſe they are born of lawful Marriage.

Melanc.Melancton in his Commentary upon the place thus. Therefore Paul anſwers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled aſunder, for their unlike opinions of God; if the impious Perſon do 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, that is granted to believers from God; ſo here he ſpeaks the uſe of Marriage to be Holy, and to be granted of 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 p. 197not Baſtards, therefore the uſe of Marriage pleaſeth God, and how Baſtards were unclean in a peculiar manner, the Law ſhews, Deut. 23.

Muſculus in his Comment upon the place, confeſſeth,Muſcul. That he had abuſed formerly that place againſt the Anabaptiſts, but found it impertinent to that purpoſe.

Camerareus in his Commentary up- the place, ſaith,Camera. (For the unbelieving Husband hath been ſanctified an unuſual change of the Tenſe, that is) ſanctified in the lawfull uſe of Marriage; for without this, ſaith he, it would be that their Children ſhould be unclean, that is infamous, and not Legitimate; who ſo are Holy, that is during the Marriage, are without all blot of ignominy.

Eraſmus upon the place, ſaith thus.Eraſm. Infants born of ſuch Parents, as the one, being a Chriſtian, the other not, are holy legitimately; for the converſion of either Wife or Husband doth not diſſolve the Marriage which was made, when both were in unbelief.

And to which we might add many more; for as a learned ſearcher into this Controverſie affirmeth, that p. 198all the ancients went this way, and that none ever affirmed this new way of faederal Holineſs till the Controverſie of Anabaptiſts in Germany aroſe, Mr. Tombes in his Examen 82.

Object. But you give another ſence of the word Holy then is to be found in Scripture; for no where is Holy the ſame with Legitimate, but throughout the Bible (yea in 600. places ſaith Mr. Sydnam, and Mr. Baxter again and again) Holineſs is taken for a ſeparation to God, but never in a common ſence.

Anſw. To which I anſwer firſt, That ſuppoſe it was ſo, that the word in all places but this ſhould have another ſence, it followeth not but it may have this ſence properly enough here, the ſcope of the place leading to it. As for Example, the word foreign, ſignifying authority or power in all other places; yet in the 1 Cor. 1115. is rendred a …ail: So the word foreign that generally; and in moſt other places is tranſlated to bleſs, doth in Job 1.5, 11. & 2.9. ſignifie a quite contrary ſence, namely to Curſe, and of which p. 199we might give you many Inſtances, but let one more ſerve for all in the very word it ſelf, viz. foreign which generally ſignifieth Holineſs; yet in Deut. 23.17. Hoſea 4.14. 2 Kings 23.17. is rendred Whoredom or Sodomy.

And ſecondly, neither are we to ſeek of ſome parallel place. where the word Holy ſignifieth this ſort of Holineſs, viz. Matrimonial or Conjugal Holineſs, Mal. 2.15. a Holy Seed, viz. a Legitimate Seed, as Calvin and Camer, and others inlarge upon it in oppoſition to Bastardy or unholy; for ſo were Baſtards to be eſteemed, Deut. 23.17. And ſo 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4, 5. This is the will of God, even your ſanctification, that you ſhould abſtain from fornication, that every one ſhould know how poſſeſs his Veſſel in ſanctification and honour, as 'tis ſaid of the Young men, 1 Sam. 21.5. and not in the luſt of Concupiſcence, &c. Where Holineſs is put in oppoſition to uncleanneſs and fornication.

But Thirdly, neither can Matrimonial Holineſs be ſaid not to be a ſeparation to God; for it is no other then a ſetting apart according to Gods Ordinance, and which is called honourable, p. 200(or in this ſence holy) and that too all whereby Men and Women are dedicated and devoted to each other by mutual ſolemn contract, according to Gods Inſtitution, that of two they may be made one, and fill up a Relation to the Holy ends God appointed, viz. to prevent uncleanneſs for mutual help and propagation: And though we do not call a Marriage a Sacrament with the Papiſts, yet we own it an honourable and holy ſtate, Gods Ordinance having made it ſo.

Object. But this ſeems to be a ſence contrary to the expreſs words; for is it not ſaid that the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by the Wife, which is a ſanctification derived from the Believer.

Anſw. To which I Anſwer, that the word [foreign] tranſlated [by] ſhould be rendred [to] as it is Gal. 1.16, [to me] 2. P. 2.5. [to faith] Acts 4.12. [to men] which the ſcope over-rules, and which muſt needs be ſo here, which Mr. Marſhal grants Tombs Ex. P. 79. for in no ſence can it be ſanctified by her: for he is not ſpiritually ſanctified, being as yet an unbeliever; and one Argument therefore of the Wives remaining to endeavour to convert him: p. 201Neither can it be a faederal Holineſs; for that by this Argument would intitle him to Baptiſme as well as the Children; nor can it be proper to ſay, the unbeliever is ſanctified in a Matrimonial ſanctification by his believing Wife for that is only ſo by Gods appointment; therefore muſt it neceſſarily be to the Wife, viz. to her uſe and lawfull enjoyment, as Food and Rayment, and all Gods bleſſings are, it being not as [Mr. Marſhal grants] a Holineſs of State, but of uſe, and therefore ſhe did not ſin in continuing in the ſtation and place Religion found her, which is the Anſwer to the Scruple.

But is it not ſaid, Object 3 now are your Children holy? implying ſome preſent alteration for good to them, upon the change of the ſtate of the Parent, which did not belong to them before.

Anſw. To which Beza's ſence of the words may be a very proper Anſwer, viz. That the word (is not to be underſtood an Adverb of Time, but a Conjunction that is wont to be uſed in the aſſumptions of Arguments; and ſo the ſence is [but now] that is, for as much as the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified to the Wife, your Children are holy, that is lawfully begotten and born.

p. 202Therefore notwithſtanding your difference in Religion, that although he be an Idolater, and you a Chriſtian, yet the civil ſtate lawfully entered into before this alteration may be converſt in without ſin: For if the Believer ſhould depart, and break the Relation, it was either for the defect of the firſt Band or Tie, or for unequal yoaking with Infidels, as in Ezra s time. But as to the latter, there being no ſuch Law to the Gentiles to put away Wives and Children upon that account. And to the former you having no doubt of the Legitimacy of your Children, but take it for granted they are Holy, neither need you doubt of your lawfull Marriage ſtate, your new Relations infringing neither: Therefore from the Holineſs both of Bed and Birth continue together, and let not the believing Husband put away his unbelieving Wife; not let not the believing Wife depart from her unbelieving Husband, which is all the Holineſs that is found in this Text, and no ſuch thing as a faederal Holineſs, Though if there was, it would be no ground to Baptize an Infant upon, as before: