The Dippers Dipped, Article 1
A confutation of A. R. his TRACTATE, entituled, The Vanitie of childrens baptisme.
THe presse now adays is like Africa, Eras. Adag.…emper aliquid apportat novi monstri, it brings forth every day some new monster; among which one of the most ugly and mishapen is a Treatise printed by A. R. of The Vanitie of childish baptisme: quis furor ô cives! quae tanta licentia praeli! O the impietie of the men of these times, the more to be condemned by all after-ages, by how much they condemn the pietie and devotion of the former! An ordinance of God, and most holy sacrament instituted by Christ, and from the dayes of the Apostles even to this present age administred by the whole church to the children of beleevers is tearmed by the vain author of this Treatise, upon weak and childish reasons, vain and childish. Is everie action childish whereof children are the subject? Then was circumcision childish, and the protection of Angells is childish, and the imposition of hands, and benediction of our blessed Saviour (I tremble to speak it in the language of this black-mouthed Treatiser) will be concluded to be vain and childish. For the sacrament of circumcision by Gods commandement was administred to children,Mat. 18. 10. Mat. 7. 10. the Angells of heaven are childrens guardians, and our Redeemer himself took children in his arms, layd his hands upon them and blessed them. And if he commanded children to be brought unto him, shall not we bring them to the church? If he embraced them, shall not we receive them into his familie? If he layd his hands on them, shall not we wash them in his sacred font? If he blessed them, shall not we pray for them? and after a religious manner consecrate them unto him, and make them free of the citie of God according to Abrahams copie,Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed? Herod the Ascalonite, and Richard the third, King of England, were branded with anote of infamy and barbarous crueltie to allages; the one for …isling the young princes of the blood and heires of the crown of England, the other for massaging the infants in Bethlehem and the confines thereof; yet those bloodie tyrants deprived those sweet babes only of their temporall life; of how much deeper dye is their sin, who by their soul-murthering doctrine and practise endeavour to deprive the heires apparent, not of an earthly but of a celestiall crown, and all the children of the faithfull throughout the whole Christian world of the ordinarie means of eternall life? Whatsoever fair varnish hath been of late put upon this heresie, it seemed so horrid and abominable in the eyes of our predecessors and other reformed churches, they inflicted the severest punishments upon the obstinate maintainers thereof that they could devise.
At Zurick, after many disputations between*Gastius de Anabaptis. exord. l. 1. 8. Post decimam collationem decrevit Senatus. Zuinglius and the Anabaptists, the Senate made an act, that if any presumed to rebaptise those that were baptized before they should be drowned.
In the year of our Lord, 1539.*Tigutinus aquis mergere eum qui merserit baptismo eum, qui prius emerserat. five Dutch Anabaptists were burnt in Smithfield, and two beyond Southwark in the way to Newington.
At Vienna, many*How Chron. f. 456. & 579. Gast. p. 178. l. 1. uno die multi ob Catabaptismum submersi sunt; funibus enim ita legati erant, ut alter alterum post se traberet donec omnes praecipitesruerent suffocarenturque. Anabaptists were so tyed together in chains, that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated. vid. supr….
Here you may see the hand of God in punishing these sectaries some way answerable to their sin according to the observation of the wise man,*Gast. p. 310. Domini in Ropolzsteine decreverunt Anabaptistas cauterio natore, stigmataque dominorum in qu…rum terra peccassent bene expressa gerere. quo quis peccat co punietur, they who drew others into the whirl-pool of error, by constraint draw one another into the river to be drowned; and they who prophaned baptisme by a second dipping, rue it a third immersion. But the punishment of these Catabaptists we leave to them that have the legislative power in their hands, who though by present connivence they may seem to give them line: yet no doubt it is, that they may more entangle themselvs and more easily be caught. For my part, I seek not the confusion of their persons, but the confutation of their errors, two whereof A. R. undertaketh strenuously to defend.
The first is the necessitie of dipping in baptisme: dipping (saith he) in his title-page is baptizing; and baptizing dipping: and p. 8. the institution of Christ requireth that the whole man be dipped all over in water. This he endeavoureth to prove out of Mark 1. 8. and Ioh. 1. 26. and Plutarch l. de superstitione, foreign, and Act. 11. 16. c. 8. 38. 39. Philip and the Eunuch went down both into the water, and Mat. 3. 16. Christ went with Iohn into the water, p. 11. and Col. 2. 12. buried with him in baptisme, and Rom. 6. 4. 5. were buried with him by baptisme into his death. Now let any man (saith he) that is not quite fallen out of his reason judge whether washing or sprinkling the face with water, or dipping the whole man into water, doth answer all these texts of scripture.
I answer, this is a weak and childish fallacie. For, ex particulari non est syllogizari, no man in his right wits will conclude a generall from a particular, as he doth here. Some men that were baptized went into the river, therefore all that be baptized must do so! The word baptizo sometimes signifieth to dip,foreign therefore it alwayes signifieth so! Although in the places alledged the preposition foreign signifieth not in, but with; as the words immediatly following, foreign make it plain, and therefore both the Geneva and the last translation render the words, not, I have baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the holy Ghost; but, I have baptized you with water, and he will baptize you with the holy Ghost. And in the 19. of the Rev. 21. ver. it is in the originall foreign, that is word for word, they were slain in the sword, yet must it be translated they were slain with the sword, not in the sword. Notwithstanding I grant, that Christ and the Eunuch were baptized in the river, and that such baptisme of men, especially in the hotter climates, hath been, is, and may lawfully be used: yet there is no proof at all of dipping or plunging, but only washing in the river. But the question is, whether no other baptizing is lawfull; or whether dipping in rivers be so necessarie to baptisme, that none are accounted baptized but those who are dipt after such a manner; this we say is false, neither do any of the texts alledged prove it. It is true, dipping is a kind of baptizing, but all baptizing is not dipping.Mar. 3. 111 Act. 1. 5. Act. 2. 3. Mar. 7. 1. 1 Cor. 10. Mar. …0. 38. The Apostles were baptized with fire, yet were they not dipt into it: tables and beds are said in the originall to be baptized; that is, washed, yet not dipt. The Israelites in the wildernesse were baptized with the cloud, yet not dipt into it: the children of Zebedee were to be baptized with the baptisme of blood wherewith our Saviour was baptized, yet neither he nor they were dipt into blood. Lastly, all the fathers speak of the baptisme of tears wherewith all penitents are washed, yet there is no dipping in such a baptisme. As for the representation of the death and resurrection, that is not properly the inward grace signified by baptisme, but the washing the soul in the laver of regeneration, and cleansing us from our sins. However, in the manner of baptisme, as it is administred in the church of England, there is a resemblance of death and the resurrection. For, though the child he not alwayes dipped into the water (as the rubrick prescribeth, save only in case of necessitie) which would be dangerous in cold weather, especially if the child be weak and sickly: yet the Minister dippeth his hand into the water, and plucketh it out when he baptizeth the infant.
The second error of the Anabaptists, which A. R. strenuously propugneth, is their decrying down paedo baptisme, and with-holding Christs lambs from being bathed in the sacred Font. This foul error, or rather heresie (for it is condemned for such both by the primitive and the reformed churches) he endeavoureth to blanch in part, if not to quite clear from all aspersion, and justifie by four arguments which I will propound in his own words, that he may not say, I shoot his arrows without their heads: the first I find p. 27.
PART I.
The administration of baptisme which hath no expresse command in Scripture, and which overthrows or prevents that administration of baptisme which is expressely commanded in Scripture, is a meer device of mans brain, and no baptisme of Christ.
But the administration of baptisme upon infants hath no expresse command in Scripture, and it overthrows or prevents the administration of baptisme upon disciples (or beleevers) which is expressely commanded in Scripture, Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 16. 16. Ioh. 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 38. and 8. 37.
Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is a meer device of mans brain, and no baptisme of Christ.
This argument stands as it were upon two legs, and both of them are lame; the one is, that nothing may be done in the worship of God without expresse command in Scripture. This is an ignorant and erroneous assertion. For first, there is no expresse precept in Scripture for beleeving and acknowledging in terminis three Persons in the unitie of the deitie; and yet Athanasius faith in his Creed, that whosoever beleeveth not, and worshipeth not the Trinitie in unitie and unitie in Trinitie, shall; perish everlastingly. Secondly, there is no expresse command in Scripture to confesse the holy Ghost, to proceed from the Father and the Son, tanquam distinctis personis: yet it is not only an article of religion in the church of England, but also set down in the confession of the Anabaptists lately printed. Thirdly, there is no expresse precept for the abrogating of the Jewish sabbath, and religious observing the Christian: yet no Anabaptists hold themselvs bound to keep holy the Saturday or Jewish sabbath; neither have they yet (to my knowledge) oppugned the observation of the Lords day. Fourthly, there is no expresse precept in Scripture for womens receiving the sacrament of the Lords Supper. For though the word foreign used by the Apostle,1 Cor. 11. 28. (Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup,) is a common name to both sexes: yet the Apostle useth the masculine article foreign not foreign, and foreign not foreign, and so there is no expresse command but for men; yet no sectaries upon record, no not the Anabaptists themselvs exclude women from the holy Communion. Fifthly, there is no expresse precept for re-baptizing those who in their infancie were baptized by a lawfull minister, according to the form prescribed by our Saviour, in the name of the Father, and of the Son; and of the holy Ghost; nay rather, there is an expresse prohibition in the words of the Apostle, one faith, one baptisme; Eph. 4. 5…and in that clause of the Nicen Creed, I beleeve one baptisme for the remission of sins: yet re-baptizing is a prime article of the faith of this sect, from whence they take their very name of Anabaptists, that is, re-baptizers. If A. R. here will stretch expresse precept to any thing that is commanded in Scripture, either immediatly or mediatly, either in particular or in generall, either in plain or direct tearms, or in the true sense of the text: so, I grant, all the four former orthodox tenets may be proved by Scripture. And so also I have before proved the lawfulnesse of baptizing children, though there be no expresse Scripture for it intormini….
The other leg also upon which his argument standeth is as lame as the former. For the baptisme of infants no way over-throws or prevents the baptizing of any disciples or beleevers instructed in the mysteries of salvation, of whom the texts alledged are meant; but there-baptizing of such who were before baptized in their infancie (which re-baptizing is no where commanded in Scriptures:) and as, if all nations were converted to the Christian faith, there needed no more conversion, so, if all were admitted to the church by baptisme in their infancie, they should need no other admission by re-baptizing them; but there will be alwayes some to be converted till the fulnesse of the Iews and Gentiles also is come in, and till then there will be use of that precept of our Saviour Mat. 28. Go teach all nations, baptizing them; the second Argument of his against paedo-baptisme.
PART 2.
The second I find p. 20. If they ground the baptizing children from the institution of circumcision, then they ought to observe it in everie thing, and baptize males only, and that precisely on the eighth day.
ANSWER.
This argument is fallacious and childish, called in the schools fallacia accidentis, as when a Sophister argueth on this wise, If thou didst eat that which thou boughtest in the market, thou didst eat raw flesh; but thou confessest thou didst eat what thou bought'st, therefore by thine own confession thou didst eat raw flesh. The argument is captious and fallacious, wherein the Sophister subtily argueth from the subject to the accident, from the substance to the circumstance: it is true, he ate what he bought in substance or kind, were it flesh or fish, but not in what qualitie or condition he bought it; for he bought it raw, he are it rost or boyl'd: in like manner M. Bradbourn fallaciously argued before the High Commission for the observation of the Saturday or Jewish sabbath. What the Iews were commanded in the …ourth commandement, that we Christians are bound to perform. But the Iews were commanded to keep holy the seventh day from the Creation; therefore we Christians are bound to keep that day. In this syllogisme, as the former, there is fallacia accidentis. For the Sophister (as I noted before) argueth from the substance to the circumstance, from the same day specie, to the same day numero in the week. It is true, we Christians are bound by vertue of that command to appoynt a certain day for the publike service of God, and no lesse then one in seven, or a seventh day every week: yet are we not bound precisely to keep that seventh day, viz. from the Creation; which they did. The Quartodecimani used a like Sophisme; if our Easter succeed the Jewish passe-over, then we ought to keep the fourteenth day precisely as the Iews do. But our Christian Easter doth succeed the Jewish passe-over, therefore Christians ought to keep their feast of Easter precisely on the fourth day of the month, whether it fell on the first day of the week or not. In like manner A. R. argueth, If baptisme succeed circumcision, then all children ought to be baptized on the eighth day: this will not follow, no more then that children ought to be baptized in the same part where they were circumcised. The answer is very easie, the one sacrament is to succeed the other in substance, but not in each circumstance; their circumcision was expressely confined to the males and to the eighth day, so is not baptisme. Only it will follow, that because circumcision was administred to the infant as soon as it was capable thereof, or could receive the sacrament without danger; therefore children ought to be baptized as soon as conveniently they may. And this is agreeable to the resolution of S. Cypr. 1400. years ago in his Epistle to Fidus, and of a Councell held at Africk in his dayes.
The third argument I find p. 25. None may be warrantably baptized untill they do manifest and declare their faith by profession thereof; this is apparant by the doctrine and practise. First of Iohn, Mat. 3. 6. 89. Mar. 1. 4. Secondly, of Christ and his Apostles, Ioh. 3. 22. compared with the 4. 1. 2. Act. 2. 20. 41. and 8. 36. 37. and thirdly by the tenor of the commission, Mat. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 15. 16.
ANSWER.
Though the sinews of this Argument have been cut before, and the texts alledged answered, yet for the further satisfaction of the reader I further adde.
First, that none are required to manifest and declare their faith before baptisme but such who have been taught, and have use both of reason and speech. For the rule of the schools, nemo tenetur ad impossibile, holdeth in all sacramentall acts as well as others: neither can they hence infer, that children therefore ought not to be baptized, because they can make no declaration of their faith; no more then it will follow, that children ought not to eat because they cannot labour for their living. For though the Apostles rule be generall,2 Thess. 3. 10. Let him not eat that will not labour: yet all agree it must be understood of such as are able to labour; so likewise all the texts of Scripture which require confession of faith must be understood of such who have the use of reason, and of the tongue wherewith they may confesse.
Secondly, children make profession of their faith and repentance both at their baptisme by their sureties; and if they live to years of discretion in their own persons.
PART 2.
The last argument I find p. 30. The administration of baptisme which over-throws the vese nature of the covenant of grace, and whole Gospell of Christ, is Anti-christian and abominable. But the administration of baptisme upon infants doth so, because it stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenat (by naturall generation only, or by the meer profession of faith in the parents or sureties) without faith in their own persons, whereby faith is made void and the promise (which is the Gospell and object of faith) is also made of none effect, and so the preaching thereof becomes uselesse and vain also, Rom. 4. 14.
Therefore the administration of baptisme upon infants is Anti-christian and abominable.
ANSWER.
Here is thunder without lightning, thundering in the conclusion; the baptisme of infants is anti-christian & abominable: but no lightning in the premises, no proof at all that the christening children overthroweth the nature of the covenant of grace & the whole Gospell of Christ. For that which is built upon the covenant of grace, to wit, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and is nothing else but the setling to the seal of the covenant of grace upon pre-supposition of faith present or future in the person of him that is baptized, can be no over-throwing of that covenant, but a confirmation and establishing it rather. If we taught that children were heirs of the covenant by the law, then, as the Apostle teacheth us, we should make faith void, and the promise of none effect. But now, sith we teach, that Abraham, the father of the faithfull, and all his seed are heirs of the kingdom of heaven, not through the law, but through the righteousnesse of faith: we confirm the covenant of faith, and in the christening of children accomplish the promise, Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children, and to those that are afar off, and to as many as the Lord shall call by the ministerie of the Gospell into his church. Yea, (but saith he) the administration of baptisme upon infants stands upon the ground and interest which they have in the covenant by naturall generation only, or by the meer profession of faith in their parents, and sureties without faith in their persons. This is a false charge, we teach no such thing, but that children have interest in the covenant by vertue of Gods promise above mentioned, and not without faith in their own persons as [without] may signifie the exclusion of faith, though without actuall profession of faith in their own persons, which at the present they cannot do, but as soon as they come to the use of reason and years of discretion they actually do it, and thereby make the promise made for them by their sureties effectuall.
Thus have I crushed this adder, yet because after the manner of serpents, capite eliso cauda minatur, though his head be bruised he wags still his tail, and in the end of his Tractate thrusts out his sting to wound their reputation who had any dealing with him and other Sectaries in this argument: I hold it fit to spend a twig or two more upon him, till he be quite dead.
First, when the advocates for paedobaptisme argue thus out of the tenth of Marke 13, 14. None of those whom Christ bids to come unto him, as to whom belongeth the kingdome of God, may or ought to be debarred from the entrance into it by baptisme. But children of beleeving parents, who tender them to Christ, are bid to come unto him, and to them belongeth the kingdome of God: Ergo the children of beleeving parents ought not to be debarred from the entrance of the kingdome of God by baptisme.
This schismaticall Anabaptist endeavoureth to dull the edge of the argument by this answer.
ANABAP. ANSWER.
That though Christ took these children into his arms, yet he christened them not; neither doth he say, that to them, but to such belongeth the kingdome of God, that is, innocent, meek, and humble men, in these vertues resembling children.
But the edge of the argument may be sharpned by this reply.
REPLY.
First,Ioh. 4. 2. Christ christened none, neither men nor children, as Saint Iohn teacheth us, but his disciples only. If therefore an argument drawn from his example negatively were of any force, it would conclude as well against baptizing men in riper yeares as children; for certain it is, Christ baptized neither the one nor the other.
Secondly, these children were not brought to Christ that he should baptize them, but that he should touch them, and that he did; for he layd his hands upon them, and blessed them, and his blessing them was as effectuall to their salvation as if he had christened them: for Christs grace dependeth not upon the vertue of the sacrament, but contrarily, the vertue of the sacrament upon his grace.
Thirdly, when Christ said, to such belongeth the kingdome of God, he necessarily included children, whom he propounds as patterns to men; and his meaning is, to children, and to such as are so qualified as children, belongeth the kingdome of God. If he meant otherwise, his reason had been of no force, suffer children to come unto me, and forbid them not, because to men in riper yeares (that are humble and innocent like infants) belongeth the kingdome of God. What is the innocencie or humilitie of men in riper yeares that can make profession of their faith to children? Or what are they advantaged thereby, that for this qualification in them infants and sucklings should be brought to Christ? The coherent sense therefore must needs be this, Bring little children to me, for to them, and such as are like them, belongeth the kingdome of God.
Fourthly, they who have their agents in heaven, certainly belong to that kingdome; but the children of the elect have their agents in heaven:Ma…. 18. 10. for Christ saith, their Angels continually behold the face of my father which is in heaven. The children of the godly must either belong to the kingdome of God or the kingdome of Satan; and when they die, either goe to life eternall, or into everlasting torments: there is no third place after this life; either to heaven they must, or hell: if to heaven as belonging to the kingdome of God, why is the gate of entrance into it lockt up against them here? if to hell, then all the children of the faithfull that die before they can make actuall profession of their faith, even those sweet babes which suffered in Christs quarrell, and were butchered by Herod, whose feast the Church hath celebrated for 1300 yeares at least, are to be deemed in the state of damnation, which is a most uncharitable and damnable opinion.Supra artic. 2. arg. 7. See more of this argument, and the vindication thereof.
Secondly, whereas they who stand for the baptizing of children, plead for them after this manner: Omnes foederati signandi, All that are comprised within the Covenant have a right to the seal thereof: But the children of beleevers are comprised within the Covenant, both as it was first drawn, Gen. 17. 7. and after exemplified, Esay 59. 21. and Acts 2. 39. Therefore the children of the faithfull have a right to the seal, to wit, baptisme.
This refractorie Separatist endeavours to wring this weapon out of our hands by a double answer.
ANSWER.
First, that by seed in those promises is meant the posteritie of the faithfull, not sucklings or infants.
Secondly, that the promise spoken of in the Acts is not of admission into the church, or remission of sins by baptisme, but of extraordinarie gifts there mentioned; namely, the gift of healing, and of tongues, and revelations both by visions and dreams.
But they may take false hold of this weapon by this replie.
REPLY.
First, that the word used in the Acts, foreign, signifieth off-spring or those that are begotten of us, and is as appliable to children as to men in years.
Secondly, in the word seed used in Genesis and Esay children are necessarily implyed; not only because all the posteritie of the faithfull that live in riper years were children, but because millions of them dye in their infancie before they come to mans estate; and dare any exclude them all out of the covenant?
Thirdly, by seed in Genesis it may be demonstrated that infants & sucklings were necessarily understood as well as men in riper years; for infants by Gods command received the seal of the covenant, to wit, circumcision; and the children of the faithfull under the Gospell are as capable of baptisme, as the children of the Iew… were under the law of circumcision: neither did Christ by his comming contract the bounds of the church, but very much enlarged them.
Fourthly, though in the second of the Acts there is mention made of the extraordinare gifts of the spirit, v. 4. 17. Yet the promise we insist upon v. 39. is not meant of those extraordinarie gifts; for, not all of the seed of Abraham, much lesse all that were called of the Gentiles, received those extraordinarie gifts, but verie few in comparison, and that in the plantation of the Gospell, and for a few years or at most ages after, whereas the promise which the Prophet here speaketh of was to be accomplished in all. To you (saith S. Peter) is the promise made, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: but all that God called to the knowledge of the Gospell could not speak with strange tongues, nor miraculously cure diseases, neither had they the gift of prophesie; what then? Was the promise there spoken of made to the Iews and their children, and all the Gentiles whom God had vouchsafed to call? namely, the promise of salvation. v. 21. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved; and the gift of repentance, and remission of sins by baptisme mentioned. v. 38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Iesus, for remission of sins.
Thirdly, whereas they who are wel-affected to childrens baptisme draw an evidence thereof even from the cloud, mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 2. after this manner:
This truth answereth the type, but children were baptized in the type when they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, as Israel passed out of AEgypt into the wildernesse.
Ergo, children ought now to be baptized in the truth.
This sworn enemie of childrens Christendom goeth about to blot and deface this evidence by scribling upon it, that the baptizing in the sea, and the cloud the Apostle speaketh of, was an allegorie and an allusion, not any type or figure from whence any substantiall argument might be drawn for childrens baptisme.
But if we scrape away his scribling, we may read a clear evidence for the lawfulnesse of childrens baptisme.
REPLY.
For first, it is confessed on all hands, and may be collected from the sacred storie, that the Israelites took all their children with them out of AEgypt, and that they together with their parents passed through the red sed, (which was an embleme of Christs blood, in which the spirituall Pharoah and all our ghostly enemies are destroyed) and that they were washed and sprinkled as well as their parents with the water of the sea, and that which dropt from the cloud: and S. Paul addeth, v. 6. that all those things were types, foreign, and that as the Apostle saith, They and we ate the same spirituall bread, v. 4. and drank of the same spirituall rock▪ and the rock was Christ: so he might have said, that they were all baptized in the water of the cloud, and in the sea, and that water spiritually was Christs blood; for so the ancient Fathers teach us to speak.*Omnes sub nube fuerunt & Christo, aquam petra praebente potati sunt. S. Hilarie in Psal. 67. They were all under the cloud, and were drenched with Christ, the rock giving them water. *Leo de nat. dom. serm. 3. Mysteria pro temporum ratione variata sunt, cum fides qua vivimus nulla fuerit aetate diversa.And Leo, likewise the sacraments were altered according to the diversitie of the times, but the faith whereby we live in all ages, was ever one. *Aug. in Iohā tract 26. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa, in rebus quae signicabanturparia. Aug. con. Faust. l. 19. c. 14. Illa …uerunt promissiones rerum complendarum, haec sunt indicia completarum.And S. Austine yet more fully, these things were sacraments in outward tokens diverse, but in the things tokened all one with ours. And the sacraments of the old law were promises of such things as should afterward be accomplished: our sacraments of the new law are tokens that the same promises alreadie are accomplished.
Fourthly, among many other arguments brought for the justification of the practice of the Christian church in the baptizing infants, that passage of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. is much insisted upon, (For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by her husband; else were you children unclean, but now are they holy) & that for verie good reason. For the Apostles argument concludes, that some holinesse redounds to the children by the unbeleeving wives cohabition with her husband, being a beleever; or of the unbeleeving husband with a wife that is a Christian. Now the question is, whether inward holinesse or outward, that which some call federall holinesse, the Apostle cannot mean inward holinesse; for the beleefe of the father or mother cannot infuse or produce such holinesse in the infant: and if the Apostle speak of this outward or federall holinesse, and his meaning is, that the unbeleeving wife is so farre sanctified to her husband, as to bring forth a holy seed to him, that is, children belonging to the common-wealth of Israel, and having a title to the covenant of grace; then undoubtedly the children of beleevers ought to receive the seal of that covenant, to wit, baptisme.
To avoid this inference, and defeat the whole argument, this Anabaptist, with his fellow Barbar coyneth a new holinesse never heard of in scripture, and withall corrupteth the Apostles text with this absurd glosse.
ANSWER.
Because the unbeleeving wife is sanctified to her beleeving husband, therefore her children are holy, that is, lawfully begotten, not spurious, not bastards.
REPLY.
A bastard exposition, repugnant both to the text and the scope of the Apostle, as I have declared before in-part Article 2. Argument 8. whereunto may be added these important considerations.
First, holinesse in Scripture is no where taken for legitimation; they may be holy whose birth was yet not legitimate, and their birth legitmate who are far from holinesse.
Bastardie, though it be a fruit of uncleanesse in the parents, and a blemish to their children in their reputation, yet it maketh not them unclean, nor federally unholy: that is, such as belong not to the covenant of God, for Pharez, Zarah, Iephthah, and other baseborn among the Iews were circumcised, and reckoned among the people of God.
Secondly, if the Apostle meant no more by holinesse but legitimation, he had no way resolved the Corinthiant scruple, which was, whether according to the law of God, and the example of the Israelites in the dayes of Ezra, they were not to put away their unbeleeving wives and children: the Apostle answereth no, because their children begotten & born by them should be no bastards,Such marriages were then forbidden, yet were they marriages and not nullities▪ as they expound the word holy. This answer could give them no satisfaction at all, for the children that were born or begotten by the Iews, who had married strange wives in the days of Ezra were not bastards, being born in wedlock, yet they were commanded to put them away and their mothers.
Thirdly, that cannot be the meaning of the Apostle which implies untruth, for the Apostle wrote inspired by the Spirit of truth; but it is not true, that all those children are unclean, that is, as they interpret, bastards, that come of unbeleeving parents: for though either or both the parents were infidels, yet, if the children were begotten & born in lawfull wedlock, they were no bastards; & noman doubteth but there may be lawful wedlock between infidels. For marriage is de jure naturae, and adulterie among the heathen was a crime; but if the heathen marriages were no marriages, then there could be no adulterie among them, for adulterie is the defiling of the marriage bed.
Lastly, the main scope of the Apostle in this place was to perswade the beleevers among the Corinthians to cohabit with their wives that were willing to live with them, though they were yet unbleevers: not only because they might conceive good hope of their conversion by their loving and Christian conversation with them, but because thereby their children should acquire some holinesse. But if the children of beleeving parents should not be admitted to the communion of Saints, and congregation of the faithfull by baptisme, their children should gain nothing by their fathers or mothers faith, but rather lose. For if they remained still in their Judaisme, not beleeving in Christ: yet their children were to receive the outward seal of the covenant, to wit, circumcision, whereby they were reckoned among Gods people, and had such outward federall holinesse as that sacrament might give them. Sith therefore this glosse of the Anabaptists no way agreeth with the scope and intention of the Apostle, nor with the truth it selfe: it remaineth that we admit of that interpretation which the best of the ancient and latter Expositors give of the text; to wit, (the unbeleeving husband is so far sanctified by the faith of the wife, and the unbeleeving wife by the faith of her husband) that their children thereby are entitled to the covenant of grace; and therefore the Ministers of God have a good ground and warrant to administer baptisme unto them, which is the seal of their entrance into that covenant.