The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 3

The Rector Rectified · Treatise · Chapter 3

p. 75CHAP. III.

Wherein Mr. Burkitt's other Arguments are anſwered, viz. (1.) Infants are capable of the Spiritual Benefits by Baptiſm. (2.) Alſo that they have habitual Faith. (3.) That Chriſt has Lambs in his Fold, therefore Infants. (4.) Infants are capable of Chriſt's Bleſſing; they were brought to Chriſt, and received by him. (5.) Infants are in Covenant with a federal Holineſs, therefore may be baptized.

YOur third Argument, to prove Infants ought to be baptized, is this,Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptiſm. viz.

If Infants are capable of Spiritual Benefit by Baptiſm, then Baptiſm may and ought to be adminiſtred to Infants; if they are capable of the inward viſible Grace, ſure they may partake of the outward and viſible Sign; if the Word of the Promiſe doth belong to them, ſurely the Seal of the Promiſe ought not to be withheld from them.

But, ſay you, the former is true, viz. That Infants are capable of Benefits by Baptiſm; therefore the latter is true, they ought to be Baptized. There are, amongſt others, two ſpecial Bleſſings, and ſpiritual Benefits which Infants are capable of by Baptiſm, namely, Remiſſion of Sin, and Regeneration.

p. 761. Remiſſion of Sin; this being an Act of gracious Favour in God, diſcharging a Perſon from his obnoxiouſneſs to Wrath upon the ſcore of Guilt contracted, an Infant is certainly as capable of this Act of Favour, as a grown Perſon. To prove this, you bring in a Simile, That an Infant of a Traitor is as capable of the benefit of the King's gracious Favour, as the Father himſelf. Suppoſe the King ſhould ſend for a Traitor's Child out of the Cradle, (ſay you) and before all his Courtiers declare, That whereas the Blood of that Child was attainted by its Father's Treaſon, and therefore, according to Law, its whole Inheritance became forfeited to the Crown; yet, ſays the King, I will pardon this Infant freely, and reſtore him to all his forfeited Rights; and in token thereof, I command one of my Miniſters to waſh the Infant in pure Water, ſignifying thereby to all my Subjects, that he is cleanſed from his original Attainder and Corruption of Blood, and that I am perfectly reconciled to him.

I demand, (ſay you now) whether any one can truly ſay, that this Action was inſignificant to the Child, becauſe he did not underſtand it? &c.

Anſw. Were not the Male Infants of Believers before Abraham's days, as capable of the Priviledges and Benefits of Circumciſion, as Abraham's Male Infants were? If ſo, why were not they Circumciſed? If you ſay it was, Becauſe God did not require them to be Circumciſed, they were not commanded to do it: Even ſo ſay I, God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants; therefore whatſoever Benefit or Bleſſing they are capable of, it ſignifies nothing in the Caſe, unleſs there was a Command or Law given us to baptize them.

p. 772. Might you not as well argue, that Infants are capable of the Benefits or Spiritual Bleſſings ſignified by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, therefore may partake of that alſo? Are not they capable of Redemption from Sin and Wrath, by the breaking of Chriſt's Body, and ſhedding of his Blood?

3. And are not Infants of Unbelievers, nay, Turks and Pagans, capable of the Spiritual Benefits ſignified in Baptiſm? ſure, as conſidered in themſelves, they are: and why then may they not be baptized alſo?

4. Sir, 'Tis not ſuch are capable of receiving a Favour or Priviledg from God, but rather who he hath in his Sovereign Wiſdom granted that Privilege unto: And let me tell you, your Simile quite overthrows your own Argument; for if God, becauſe he is graciouſly pleaſed to acquit our Children who die in their Infancy, from the Original Guilt they brought into the World with them, through the Atonement made by Jeſus Chriſt, and in token thereof had commanded us to baptize them, the Caſe was clear, and our Controverſy was at an end: but ſince he has not required us to do any ſuch thing, whatever Grace or Favour he is pleaſed to afford to any of our Infants, we have no Warrant to baptize them; his Will and Law, and not our Fancies, being that which gives us Authority to do all we do in his Name or Worſhip. If God had commanded us to baptize our Infants, we would no more ſay that Action would be inſignificant to our Children, no more than Circumciſion was to Children under the Law, whom God required to be Circumciſed.

5. Beſides, in the laſt place, Baptiſm doth not, by God's appointment, belong to them who are capable of the Benefits or Bleſſings ſignified thereby, as Remiſſion of Sin and Regeneration, p. 78&c. but only to ſuch who are capable to repent and profeſs Faith in Chriſt; theſe we ſay, and none elſe, ought to be baptized, if the Royal Charter, or Grant of the Lord Jeſus, be obſerved in the caſe of a regal Right to Baptiſm, Suppoſe the King ſhould grant to you, and to all in your Pariſh, (who have been Traitors to him) who are skilled or learned in the Mathematicks, and underſtand the Law, to be Officers in ſome of his Courts, and will then alſo upon ſubmiſſion pardon you and them of all your horrid Crimes: will you upon this, carry up ſeveral ignorant unskilful Perſons who are in your Pariſh, tho as guilty of Treaſon as your ſelves, and offer them to the King to be Officers and Clerks in his Courts? who indeed, as they are untaught in that Art, ſo ſee not their own Guilt, nor ſubmit themſelves to the Mercy of the King, and ſay yet they are capable of Pardon, and to receive the Sallary alſo. Sir, All that are to be baptized, are, by virtue of the great Commiſſion of our Saviour, to be firſt taught and made Diſciples by teaching; and take heed you add not to his Word, nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth; nor go about, as you do, to make void his Commands by your own Traditions.

2. In pag. 15. you ſay, Infants are not leſs capable of Regeneration of their Nature, than of Remiſſion of Sins, it being certain that no unclean thing can enter into Heaven, that none can be ſaved whoſe Natures are not renewed; either the ſanctifying Grace of God (ſay you) muſt be allowed Infants, or Salvation muſt be denied them. Regenerating Grace is called by St. John, the Seed of Grace, 1 John 3.9. No way hinders, but that the Soul of an Infant may be as capable of this Seed, as of a grown p. 79Perſon: for, ſay you, I argue, thus, 'If the Image of God, conſiſting in Holineſs, was received by the Soul in the firſt Creation, without the Soul's Contribution to the Production of it, Why may not the ſame Image of God be reſtored to the Soul in the ſecond Creation, without the Soul's Concurrence and Co-operation to the Reſtitution of it? for why may not the Spirit of God produce in an Infant that imperfect …egeneration whereof we are now ſpeaking, as well as he did that perfect Holineſs in which our firſt Parents were originally created?

1. I anſwer, Were there not a dangerous Sting in the Tail of ſome of your impertinent Interrogations, I might paſs them all by without any further Anſwer than I have before given you. Sir, who queſtions the Power of God, who is a free Agent, and may do what he pleaſes? He may, 'tis true, regenerate an Infant, or change the Nature of a Child in its Mother's Womb; and may be doth change, or regenerate the depraved Nature of thoſe Infants who die in their Infancy: but who knows what Infants they are he thus works upon, and fits for Heaven? Secret things, I tell you again, belong to him.

2. But ſhould God tell us which Infants Hearts and Natures he hath thus renewed, yet that can be no ground or warrant to us to give them the Sacrament of Baptiſm, no more than the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and you know well enough the firſt Fathers of the declining Church brought in Infant-Baptiſm to waſh away that Pollution of their Nature, or free them from the Guilt of Original Sin;Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them. and alſo thoſe Fathers gave the ſame Infants the Lord's Supper, and had indeed as good Authority from God's Word to do the one as the other. And aſſure your ſelf they ſhamefully erred p. 80in both, becauſe both were done without any Warrant or Allowance from God.

But, Sir, how inconſiſtent are you with your ſelf? even juſt now you tell us that the Infants of Believers are in Covenant with God, (as well as their Parents) and are therefore holy, and from that ground ought to be baptized: But now it ſeems as if that Argument was gone with you, and notwithſtanding that federal Holineſs, they are unclean; and unleſs they have actually ſanctifying Grace, and their filthy Natures are changed, they cannot be ſaved: You juſt play the part of a Fencer, and reſolve to try your Skill with every Weapon, one while you are a Presbyterian, another time a Church-of-England-Man. But, Sir, ſpeak, doth Baptiſm change the Nature, or regenerate the Child, or doth it not? the Seed which St. John ſpeaks of, he affirms remains in thoſe Perſons in whom it is wrought, ſow'd or infuſed: ſee 1 Joh. 3.9.

And no doubt, was there indeed such a Divine Habit,Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infuſed, and its Effects will appear. or Seed of Grace infuſed into Infants in their Baptiſm, but it would appear in their Lives when grown up. Such as is the Cauſe, ſuch is the Effect, or Product that is produced, i. e. if Regeneration was wrought in all the Infants you Rantize, Holineſs would be the Effect of it, when they come to Age of Underſtanding; but all Men ſee the contrary, i. e. they ſhew their evil and unclean Natures as ſoon, nay, before they can ſpeak plain; therefore you preach falſe Doctrine, if you affirm that Baptiſm renovates or changes their Nature. Nay, and were it so, all that are baptized would be ſaved; Shall one Soul who paſſes through Regeneration miſs of Salvation?

Reverend Stephen Charnock, tho a Pedo-baptiſt, ſpeaks more like a Divine and Logician than you do. See his Book on Regenerat. sol. p. 75. p. 81ſaith he, Many Men take Baptiſm for Regeneration; the Ancients uſually give it this term; one calls our Saviour's Baptiſm, his Regeneration **As if Chriſt paſſed through Regeneration, or change of Nature.: this confers not Grace, but ingageth to it: outward Water cannot convey inward Life: How can Water, an external thing, work upon the Soul in a Phyſical manner? Neither can it be proved, that ever the Spirit o… God is tied by any Promiſe, to apply himſelf to the Soul in a gracious Operation, when Water is applied to the Body. If it were ſo that all that were baptized were regenerated, then all that were baptized ſhould be ſaved, or elſe the Doctrine of Perſeverance falls to the ground. And again he ſays, That ſome indeed ſay that Regeneration is conferred in Baptiſm upon the Elect, and exerts it ſelf afterwards in Converſion: But how ſo active a Principle as a ſpiritual Life, ſhould lie dead and aſleep ſo long, even many Years, which intervene between Baptiſm and Converſion, is not eaſily conceivable? So far Mr. Charnock.

'Tis well you call it an imperfect Regeneration, Abortive, or a Monſter no doubt; for Baptiſm forms no Child of God: if it did, how come Simon Magus, who was baptized, to miſs of Regeneration? Acts 8.13. And indeed this is an eaſy way to Heaven; I mean if there is no need of further Regeneration than that poor Babes have in Baptiſm. I know your Church ſaith, that an Infant is made thereby a Child of God, a Member of Chriſt, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. Sad Doctrine!Baptiſm makes no Perſons Chriſtians. God deliver England from ſuch Guides as teach the common People: Nay, all who will be led or taught by them, that Baptiſm makes them Chriſtians, and ſo never teach them to look after any other Regeneration, tho ſuch whom you baptize, as you call it, if they live, when they are grown up, p. 82prove wicked and ungodly Perſons, or carnal Worldlings. Sir, take heed what you do, leſt the Blood of your deceived and miſerable People be required at your hands. Is not this to heal the hurt of your People ſlightly, and to cry, Peace, Peace, when there is no Peace? This is the Sting I ſaw in the Tail of your Argument.

You ask many Queſtions, Why may not this be ſo: and, Why may not that be ſo? Who taught you thus to argue, what do you prove? But that which troubles me moſt is this, viz. That after you have put forth theſe unlearned and weak Queſtions, you draw Concluſions therefrom, with daring Boldneſs, after this manner, viz. What an high Affront then do theſe Men give to the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit, who affirm, that it is as vain a thing to hope and pray, that Almighty God ſhould regenerate an Infant with his holy Spirit, as to expect that he ſhould illuminate a Stone or a Tree? **Theſe words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor.pag. 16.

But, ſay you, if Infants are found capable Subjects of regenerating Grace, and Remiſſion of Sin, as, I hope, appears, then ſurely they are capable of Baptiſm; for the outward viſible Sign ought not to be denied to ſuch as are capable of the inward ſpiritual Grace.

Anſw. 1. Sir, you are to be rectified, Do we deny the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit? none of us never doubted of the Power of the Spirit in regenerating an Infant, if he pleaſes ſo to do; but you are to prove God doth do it, and that by Baptiſm too; for that's the thing you ſeem to contend for, which we deny: we ſay, God can of Stones raiſe up Children to Abraham, if he pleaſes.

2. We do affirm, you have as much ground of Faith from any Promiſe of God, to pray that God would illuminate a Stone or a Tree, as you p. 83have to pray God by Baptiſm he would regenerate one Infant. If you pray not in Faith, you ſin; and if you have no Promiſe of God to ground your Faith upon, when you pray God by Baptiſm to regenerate an Infant, then you cannot pray in Faith. Two things you are to prove;

(1.) That God doth require you to baptize Infants.

(2.) Prove that Baptiſm is appointed of God to regenerate Children, or the Adult either, if you can.

3. I do ſay that Baptiſm doth not belong to them who may be ſaid in a remote ſenſe to be capable of Regeneration; for Unbelievers are capable of Regeneration (or elſe ſad is their condition) and are they therefore capable of Baptiſm? Baptiſm is not an outward Sign of what a Perſon is capable of, or may have hereafter; but of that thing, or inward ſpiritual Grace the Perſon baptized hath at preſent (or gives ſome evidence of) before, or at the time when he is baptized; and for this I could cite you divers of the Ancient Fathers, and Modern Divines.

You may be as capable to be a Juſtice of Peace (as far as I know) as you are to be a Preacher? may you therefore give forth Warrants, and exerciſe that Office?

4. And laſtly, I muſt tell you, Infants are not in an ordinary way capable of the Image of God, tho they may be capable of Grace and Salvation by Chriſt; becauſe the Image of God conſiſteth in Knowledg, Col. 3.10. And have put on the new Man, which is renewed in Knowledg, Pool's Annotat.after the Image of him that created him. Hence our Annotators tell you, that in Regeneration, or in reſtoring the loſt Image of God, the Underſtanding muſt be enlightned; and are Children capable of an enlightned Underſtanding, who p. 84have no Underſtanding at all? or do you pray God would work Miracles? Would it not be a miraculous thing to ſee a Babe of two or ten days old, to have ſuch Knowledg of God and of Jeſus Chriſt?

Obj. But in Pag. 16. you argue upon us thus, viz. Circumciſion was inſtituted for the ſame end that Baptiſm is; and the Party circumciſed, was under the ſame natural Incapacity with the Perſon baptized: And from hence you charge us with Arrogancy, as if we would make our ſelves wiſer than God.

1. I anſwer; We have proved Circumciſion was not inſtituted for the ſame end that Baptiſm is, but for ſeveral other Grounds and Reaſons; therefore what you ſay is not true. See our Anſwer.

2. And does it follow, becauſe God commanded Abraham to circumciſe his Male Infants, that you may command Parents to baptize their Infants, both Males and Females, who are not the Subjects Jeſus Chriſt has commanded in the New Teſtament to be baptized? And do not you herein make your ſelves wiſer than God? O how juſtly may this Arrogancy be retorted back upon your ſelves!

Your Brethren,Athenian Society ſay Females were circumciſed by ſome People formerly. the Athenian Society, in two or three of their Mercuries, tell us, in ſome parts of the World they circumciſe their Females; and no doubt of it, they have as good (or better) Authority ſo to do, as you have to baptize Children. See Vol. 7. Numb. 7. Where they ſay, The Creophagians, Arabians, ſome of the Deſcendants of Iſhmael, did judicially circumciſe not only Males but Females. Alſo the Ethiopians, eſpecially in the Dominions of Preſter John, circumciſe Females. And for further Information, they direct to Bartho. de Antiquit. Puerperi, Bellonius, Caelius Rhodoginus, and ſeveral p. 85other Hiſtories and Authors. May be they argue as you do, the Females are capable as the Males, of the Benefits of Circumciſion, and therefore may Circumciſe them.

3. Our Argument, I muſt tell you again,Infants may be capable to be ſaved, and yet not capable Subjects of Baptiſm. lies not ſo much in that Infants are uncapable of any Spiritual Benefit by Baptiſm, (had it pleaſed Almighty God to have commanded them to be baptized, as he did the Circumciſion of Infants) but in that firſt we cannot find, directly nor indirectly, I mean either by Precept, Example, or good Conſequences from all God's Word, 'tis his Mind or Will they ſhould be admitted to Baptiſm.

Secondly, Becauſe they have not thoſe previous Qualifications, which according to the poſitive and expreſs Law of Chriſt, is neceſſary in all that ought to be baptized; therefore in p. 16, 17. you ſet up a Man of Straw of your own making, and then fight with it. Had God required Infants to be baptized, who could argue againſt their being capable of it? However ſince actual Faith, and the profeſſion of it, is required of all that are to be baptized; we ſay, Infants who are uncapable to act Faith, are not, cannot be proper or fit Subjects for that Sacrament.

2. Becauſe none are to be baptized by virtue of Chriſt's Law and Commiſſion, Matth. 28. but ſuch who are made Diſciples, by being firſt taught. Infants who are not capable ſo to be made Diſciples, ought not to be baptized. And to theſe two Arguments, we will now ſee your Anſwer, pag. 18. of your Book, which is as followeth, viz.

That a Profeſſion of Faith is neceſſarily required before Baptiſm in all Adult Perſons, that is, Perſons grown up to riper Years, who are (ſay you) the Perſons whom our Saviour meant when he ſaid, He that believeth, and is baptized, ſhall be p. 86ſaved; as moſt evidently appears by the words following, He that believeth not, ſhall be damned, Mark 16.16.

What! muſt all that die in their Infancy go to Hell for an Impoſſibility? The Text only intends ſuch, as by hearing the Goſpel preached, are capable of actual Faith: ſuch as enjoy the Means of Faith, and yet live and die in neglect of Faith, and contempt of Baptiſm, ſhall certainly be damned; 2 Theſſ. 3.10. ſays the Apoſtle, If any Man will not work, neither let him eat; that is, ſuch as are capable to work, muſt not eat: But muſt Children be ſtarved, becauſe they cannot work? Thus ſay you here, Children lie under a natural Incapacity of profeſſing actual Faith; therefore the firſt Text doth not concern them any more than the latter.

Anſw. I. Sir, You have given away your Cauſe now for ever. If this Text, Mark 16.16. does no more concern Infants than that in 2 Theſſ 3.10. then be ſure, as they having nothing to do with Faith, ſo have they nothing to do with Baptiſm; for all the Learned generally, as one Man, do and muſt confeſs, the Commiſſion of our Saviour is our great Warrant and Rule for Baptizing; Therefore (ſaith Mr. Baxter) if we find it not here, where have we it? Now this in Mark contains the Commiſſion of Chriſt, viz. who they be that he would have to be baptized, and they are ſuch who believe, (Matthew ſays in repeating the words of the ſame Commiſſion) ſuch who are diſcipled, or made Diſciples: And you ſay, Infants are no more concerned in this Text, than in that, where the Apoſtle only intends Men, who will not work, which all know doth no ways refer to Children, ſo that the Diſpute might well here end. By your own conceſſion, Infants are not concerned in the Commiſſion.

p. 872. You ſay, the Adult are here intended; we ſay ſo too: Whither then will you go for your Infants Right to Baptiſm? We can prove, from many Texts, Infants ought to eat, though they cannot work. But how will you prove Infants ought to be baptized by any other Scriptures, if not from the Commiſſion, though they do not believe, or have not actual Faith?

3. May you not as well argue thus, viz. If Children have mortal Bodies, they muſt be fed at their Parents Table, and eat Bread, though they cannot work. So becauſe they have immortal Souls, therefore they muſt be fed at the Lord's Table, and eat the Lord's Supper, though they can't believe nor diſcern the Lord's Body by Faith. The Apoſtle ſaith, Let a Man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat; but this is only required of Adult Perſons, and 'tis ſuch St. Paul means: But Infants who are capable to receive ſpiritual Benefit by Chriſt's Death, they muſt have the Medicine alſo; may you not argue thus as well? Pray, Reader, obſerve what a kind of Doctrine this Man aſſerts.

I demand, (ſay you) Whether according to the Mind of God, gathered from the words of the Commiſſion, the Remedy preſcribed ſhould be adminiſtred only to grown Perſons, becauſe they only are capable of underſtanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it? Sure every rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himſelf, altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it, and only paſſive in the Adminiſtration of it; and that it would be Cruelty, yea Murder in the Parent, to deny the Application of it to all his Children.

Reply; I ſtand amazed at your Ignorance and Folly. Does it follow, becauſe Children are capable to receive a Medicine againſt the Plague or bodily Diſtemper, are they therefore capable p. 88of Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper? If capable of one, ſay I, of the other alſo; for as a Man is required to examine himſelf, and to diſcern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper, ſo he is required to repent and to believe in Chriſt▪ that comes to Baptiſm.

4. I would know how you prove Baptiſm to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin? Is not this to blind the Eyes of poor People,Baptiſm cannot ſave the Souls of Infants. and make them think that an external Ordinance ſaves the Soul? If not thus, how can it be Cruelty, yea Murder, in Parents, to deny the Application of Baptiſm to their Children? The Ancient Fathers, from that in John 6.53. Ʋnleſs a Man eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, he hath no Life in him; gave Infants the Lord's Supper, thinking our Saviour (like as the Papiſts do) meant that Sacrament, when indeed he meant only of … by Faith on Chriſt crucified. But however, their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament, was as good as yours for giving them the other: But when they are as capable to repent and believe, and are helped ſo to do as they are, and do eat Bread, let them have both Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper; and till then, if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice, (and not our own Fancies) they ought to have neither; yet the Remedy or Medicine, which is Chriſt's Blood, we deny not, but dying Infants may be capable of.

5. Sir, You ſeem to be no true Son of the Church of England, for they it ſeems poſitively affirm, Repentance, whereby a Perſon forſakes Sin, and Faith, whereby he ſtedfaſtly believes the Promiſe of God made to him in that Sacrament, is required of thoſe who are to be baptized; nay and of little Babes too, therefore the Sureties anſwer for them, that they do believe and repent, or forſake p. 89the Devil and all his Works, &c. the Child anſwers by Proxy. Your Church baptizes no Child but as a Believer, and a true penitent Perſon. What is this your Argument good for? even nothing. How now, are you wiſer than the Church? no doubt ſhe believes as we do. All that are proper Subjects of Baptiſm, are comprehended in the Commiſſion, and muſt be as ſuch, whether Adult or Infants, who profeſs Faith and Repentance: But you it may be foreſaw the Snake in the Graſs, viz. that God-fathers and God-mothers is a Tradition, and none of God's Appointment; nor are they able to perform thoſe things for the Child, which they promiſe for him, and in his Name. And therefore make uſe of another Argument, and would have them baptized without Faith, or upon their Parents Faith, of which your Church ſpeaks nothing.

As to your Compariſon, 'tis not worth mentioning: Baptiſm (as I have told you) doth not cure the Soul of Sin, but 'tis the Blood of Chriſt applied by Faith: And now do we ſay, no Child can have the Benefit of that Sovereign Remedy, becauſe not capable to believe, by reaſon Men and Women muſt receive it by Faith, or periſh. God (as Dr. Taylor obſerves) may have many ways to magnify his Grace, through Jeſus Chriſt, to them, which we know not of, who die in their Infancy, yet have we no Authority to baptize them, any more than to give them the Lord's Supper.

6. Sir, You talk at a ſtrange rate, as if you regarded not what you ſay or affirm, while you bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptiſm is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin; and as if the application of it ſaved a little Babe from Hell, and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children, who deny to baptize them. I had thought you would not have lain greater p. 90ſtreſs upon Childrens Baptiſm, than on Childrens Circumciſion, ſince you would fain have them run parallel-wiſe.

Pray, what became of the Jews Female Infants, were they damned? And what became of their Male Infants, who died before eight days old? for they broke God's Law, if they Circumcumciſed them, (though ſick and like to die) if they were not full eight days old. Bluſh for the ſake of your precious Soul, and take more care for time to come, to what you Preach and Write.

But to proceed: In pag. 19. you ſay, Tho Children have not actual Faith, yet they have habitual Faith, Faith in Semine, and ſo are potentially Believers. As for Inſtance, Infants have not Reaſon; yet becauſe they have a Principle, we call them reaſonable Creatures. Thus Infants, whilſt ſuch, have not the Uſe and Exerciſe of Faith, but have it in the Root, and ſo may be called Believers initially.

Anſ. 1. Dr. Taylor clearly confutes this Conceit of yours; Some there be (ſaith he) who argue ſtiffly for Infants having habitual Faith; but (ſaith he) is there any Precedent, Concomitant, or Conſequent to this pretended Habit? This ſtrange Invention is abſolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reaſon or Authority.

Anſw. 2. Why may not the Infants of Unbelievers have the ſame habitual Faith, as well as the Infants of Believers? Alſo may not Pagans, eſpecially thoſe who may come where the Goſpel is preached, be potentially Believers, and be baptized, before they believe upon the ſame Argument?

3. If they had the Habit of true Faith, that Habit would appear afterwards, and they would need no other Sacred Habits to be infuſed into them; but we ſee in Infants baptized (as you p. 91call it) when grown up, the Evil Habits of Sin, but no Sacred Habits of Grace, or Divine Faith, or Seed of Regeneration ſown into them at all. What is in the Root, will ſhew it ſelf in the Branches and Fruit; but we having fully anſwered this weak Aſſertion already, ſhall ſay no more to it now.

You add, That Infants born within the Boſom of the Church, of believing Parents, tho Faith of the Parents is to them at preſent, inſtead of an outward Profeſſion in their own Perſons; for (ſay you) though no Child is ſaveable by its Parents Faith, yet the Child is baptizable by virtue of its Parents Faith, becauſe the Parent receives the Promiſe of God, both for himſelf and his Seed, Acts 2.39.

1. I anſwer; Let all Men judg of that Confuſion which attends your Arguing and Arguments for Infant-Baptiſm: One while the abſolute Ground and Plea you bring to prove it, is the Covenant made with Abraham. Sir, If that will do, and be ſufficient, ſtand by it: but alas you dare not truſt the whole Structure on that crazy Foundation; therefore now you go to the immediate Faith of the Parents, and thus without any Ground or Authority from God's Word, you build your childiſh Practice upon your own Dream: Why not, as your Church teaches, upon the Faith and Profeſſion of the Sureties? why the Faith of the immediate Parents? Thoſe Texts you mention, Acts 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14. as we ſhall hereafter ſhew, prove not what you here affirm, nor any thing like it.

2. If the Parents Faith will ſerve for the Child,The Parents Baptiſm may ſerve for the Child, as well as the Parents Faith. why not the Parents Baptiſm ſerve for the Child as well?

Take again what the Biſhop of Down hath wrote on this Argument of yours; Some ſay (ſaith he) Infants have an Imputative Faith; p. 92but then ſo let the Sacraments be too; that is, if they have the Parents Faith, or the Churches, then ſo let Baptiſm be imputed alſo by derivation from them; and as in their Mother's Breaſt, they live upon their Mother's Nouriſhment, ſo they may upon the Baptiſm of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: for ſince Faith is neceſſary to the ſuſception of Baptiſm, (and they themſelves confeſs it, by ſtriving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the Matter) ſuch as is the Faith, ſuch muſt be the Sacrament; for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament, and an imputative Faith, this being immediate and neceſſary in order to that. 'Thus far Dr. Taylor.

3. I wonder (as I have formerly ſaid) what Faith 'tis you ſuppoſe to be in Infants: When will your Trumpet give a certain Sound? Is it the Faith of the Church, as Thomas Aquinas aſſerts, which is intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof, or in her Boſom, to uſe your words? Or is it an imputative Faith from the Parents, as Muſculus, you, and others maintain? Or is it the Faith of the Goſſips or Sureties, as your Church ſays,Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptiſts, what Faith Infants have. i. e. others believe for them? [Wonder, O Heavens, and be aſtoniſhed, O Earth ! are theſe thy Teachers, O England?]; Have they a juſtifying Faith, as Mr. Baxter intimates? Or a dogmatical Faith only, as in Mr. Blake's ſenſe? Some ſay 'tis a Phyſical Faith, ſome a Metaphyſical, and ſome a Hyperphyſical Faith. Some ſay they are born Believers,See Mr. Danvers. others ſay they are made Believers by Baptiſm.

See what Confuſion you Pedo-Baptiſts are in. An actual Faith you dare not ſay they have, becauſe they have no Act of Underſtanding: Beſides, how can any Man know they have Faith, ſince he never ſaw any ſign of it? neither p. 93was he told it, by any that could tell.

Object. But then, Pag. 19. you bring in our Objection: Infants are not capable of Miniſterial Teaching, therefore not of Baptiſmal Waſhing; becauſe Teaching muſt go before Baptizing, according to the order of the words in our Saviour's Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19. Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c.

Your Anſwer is, That it is a mighty Weakneſs to infer from the order of the words, the neceſſary order of things. St. Matthew ſets Teaching before Baptizing; but St. Mark ſets Baptizing before Teaching, Mark 1.4. ſo that no concluſive Argument can be drawn from hence either way.

Anſw. I anſwer, you diſcover a great Abuſe of the ſacred Scripture. Sir, doth St. Mark, Chap. 1.4. ſet Baptizing before Teaching? Pray, good Reader, obſerve the Text, John did baptize in the Wilderneſs, and teach the Baptiſm of Repentance for the Remiſſion of Sins.

1. Doth this Text, in the order of words, ſay, John taught Perſons to be baptized, and then to repent? if what you ſay were true, ſo the order of words muſt have been; and then he had indeed taught contrary to our Saviour's Doctrine in the Commiſſion in order of words, as recorded by St. Mat. 28.19. 'Tis called, ſaith our Annotators, the Baptiſm of Repentance, becauſe Repentance was the great thing he taught: nay, and taught Repentance abſolutely neceſſary in all who came to be baptized by him. The order of words are very concluſive here, and muſt not be inverted without palpable danger of God's Diſpleaſure. John called upon all who came to his Baptiſm to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, and the order of words here do not contradict this; for becauſe Repentance was pre-requiſite to Baptiſm, it is called the Baptiſm of Repentance; and p. 94ſo the order of the words, if underſtood, ſhews, … that Repentance went before baptizing, which directly agrees with St. Mat. 28.19. Go, teach all Nations, baptizing them; that is, ſuch who have been taught or diſcipled; and this was according to Chriſt's own Practice, Joh. 4.1, 2. Jeſus made and baptized more Diſciples than John, (mark Reader!) they were all Diſciples which John and our Saviour baptized; Jeſus made them firſt Diſciples, and ſo did John, and then baptized them.

Had John Baptiſt, our Saviour, or his Apoſtles baptized one Infant, or one Adult Perſon, who made no Profeſſion of Faith, the order of words were not ſo concluſive and demonſtrative, but that they never did (as we read of.)

Where therefore the order of Words, and order of Practice go together, and exactly agree, they ought not to be inverted; and he that doth it, is greatly culpable before God, as I might ſhew in the Adminiſtration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; the order of words are, Chriſt firſt took the Bread, and brake it, and then the Cup: Would any dare to invert this order of words, and firſt take the Cup, &c. they may as well attempt ſo to do, as to put Baptizing before Teaching.

Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257.Take what Mr. Perkins hath ſaid concerning the order of words in the Commiſſion: ſaith he, I explain the former thus.

Firſt, teach them; that is, make them my Diſciples by teaching them to believe and repent. Here we are to conſider the order which God obſerves in making with Men a Covenant in Baptiſm. Firſt of all, he calls them by his Word and Spirit to believe and repent: then, in the ſecond place, he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveneſs; and then, thirdly, he seals his Promiſe by Baptiſm. They (ſaith p. 95he) that know not, nor conſider this Order which God uſed in covenanting with them in Baptiſm, deal prepoſterouſly, over-ſlipping the Commandment of repenting and believing, and is the cauſe of ſo much Prophaneneſs in the World. This Divine Order Chriſt ſignifieth, when he ſaith, make them Diſciples, and was always obſerved of God.

Mr. Perkins as he was a very learned Man, ſo you know he was a Member of the Church of England, and how fully does he confirm what we ſay, and teach, and how does he confute your Notion and Practice? Moreover, Mr. Richard Baxter, ſpeaking of the Order of the Commiſſion Chriſt gave to his Diſciples, ſaith,Baxter's Right of Baptiſm, p. 149, 150. viz. Their firſt Task is to make Diſciples, which are by St. Mark called Believers. The ſecond work is to baptize them, whereunto is annexed the Promiſe of Salvation. The third work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Chriſt. To contemn this Order, is to contemn the Rules of all Order; for where can we find it, if not here? I profeſs my Conſcience is fully ſatisfied from this Text, that there is one ſort of Faith—that muſt go before Baptiſm, the Profeſſion whereof the Miniſter muſt expect.

2. You ſay,Mr. Burkit's ſenſe of the order of the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19.Matt 28:19 The true reaſon why Chriſt bid his Diſciples firſt teach and then baptize, was, becauſe he was ſending his Apoſtles forth among the Heathen to convert them to Chriſtianity, in which work we all know, that preaching of the Word muſt go before the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, Pag. 20. Should, ſay you, the King of England ſend his Miniſters into Foreign Plantations to convert the Indians to Chriſtianity, they ought not to be baptized before they are taught, and inſtructed; but when the Parents are p. 96proſelyted, and make a viſible Profeſſion of their Faith, their Children may be baptized, and afterwards inſtructed; as the Children of the Jewiſh Proſelytes were firſt circumciſed, and then taught: for tho Abraham was firſt taught and then circumciſed, yet Iſaac was firſt circumciſed and then taught: ſo that the ſenſe of our Saviour is this, teach ſuch as are capable of teaching, and baptize ſuch as are capable of Baptiſm.

Anſw. I anſwer, firſt, how inconſiſtent is this with what juſt before you aſſerted? Do you not plead for Faith in ſome ſenſe to be in all ſuch, who by virtue of the Commiſſion ought to be baptized, and therefore pretend that Infants have Habitual Faith, Faith in ſemine, &c. but now plead they may be capable of Baptiſm without Faith; you alſo contradict what you before ſaid about the order of words. Do you not poſitively now confeſs by the order of the words in the Commiſſion, Teaching ought to go before Baptizing? Sir, 'tis a ſign of a very bad Cauſe that puts you thus to try your Wit, and after all confound your ſelf.

2. I ask you how Abraham (who God commanded to be Circumciſed, as a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of that Faith HE had before circumciſed) could know he ought to circumciſe his Son Iſaac, &c. who had no ſuch Faith, had not God given him an expreſs Command to do it? Had it not been in the words of his Commiſſion, durſt he, think you, have done it? Be ſure if he had, he had ſinned in doing that which God commanded him not: So, and in like manner, ſince our Lord Jeſus expreſly in his Commiſſion, commanded none to be baptized but ſuch who are firſt taught, unleſs he had added, as in Abraham's Caſe, viz. when an Heathen is converted to the Faith, and baptized, you may baptize p. 97his Infants alſo; how dare you add ſuch Additions to Chriſt's Commiſſion without his Authority, and ſo make the World believe, if you could, our bleſſed Saviour gave forth an imperfect Commiſſion to his Diſciples, which all Men muſt confeſs is the only Warrant and Rule of all Miniſters to act by in the caſe of baptizing to the end of the World? And doth he not ſay, Add thou not to his Word, leſt he reprove thee, and thou art found to be a Liar; by fathering that on Chriſt which he never ſaid nor intended?

Suppoſe the King ſhould ſend you with a Commiſſion into a remote Plantation, and command you to act and do exactly according to the expreſs words of the Commiſſion, not to add to it, nor diminiſh from it, upon pain of being caſt out of his Favour, and incur his Wrath and Curſe; durſt you to do otherwiſe in any thing, under pretence it was his meaning, whereas he plainly and fully in his Commiſſion expreſſed in the Affirmative, how and what you ſhould do in all Matters and things, and forbad you to add thereto? Read Rev. 22.18. For I teſtify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book, If any Man ſhall add unto theſe things, God ſhall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book, &c. Who told you what you ſay is the ſenſe of our Saviour? Can any Man once think, ſince the Commiſſion of Chriſt is a pure Goſpel-Commiſſion, and contains meer poſitive Laws and Rules, no ways referring to, nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham, that what you ſay can be true, and the Concluſions ſafe, certain, and warrantable? May not another ſay, with as good Authority, that our Saviour commands his Diſciples to baptize all Nations, both Parents and Children too, whether they will or not, whether p. 98they believe or not, whether Jews or Gentiles, Turks or Pagans? I wonder you are not afraid, who take liberty after this ſort to ſport (as it were) and play with, invert, alter and add unto the ſacred Commiſſion of the jealous God, and great King of Heaven and Earth.

3. We will examine your Similitude, of which you ſeem very full,

Suppoſe, ſay you, a Perſon, Owner of a great Flock of Sheep, ſhould command his Shepherd to ſhear all his Sheep, and give them an Earmark to know them, and he leaves out all the Lambs (which perhaps made up half the Fold) unmark'd; Can the Shepherd be ſuppos'd to have done his Duty? Suppoſe he ſays the Lambs were very young, and uncapable of ſhearing: True, ſays the Owner, but were they not capable of marking.

Infants, ſay you, are not capable of teaching, but are they not capable of Chriſt's Earmark [Baptiſm] by which Chriſt's Sheep are diſtinguiſhed from the Devils Goats? But according to your Principles, Chriſt's Fold has no Lambs in it, but all Sheep, ſuch a Fold as the World never yet heard of. See Iſa. 40.11.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer; this is as weak an Alluſion or Similitude as ever was brought to illuſtrate a matter:

For, firſt, it ſuppoſes that Chriſt gave a very obſcure, dark and doubtful Commiſſion; for if all were to be ſheared that the Shepherd was to mark, the Shepherd could not err in refuſing to mark the Lambs, becauſe not capable of ſhearing; for ſo it is here, all are by Chriſt's Commiſſion to be firſt taught who are to be baptized.

2. You ſuppoſe in Chriſt's Fold there are no Lambs, if no Infants are admitted to be of his p. 99Church or Flock; which is abſurd: Were they Infants that Chriſt commanded St. Peter to feed, when he bad him feed his Lambs? Joh. 21.15. Or, were they Infants that Chriſt is ſaid to carry in his Boſom? Iſa. 40.11. The Scripture you cite, He ſhall feed his Flock like a Shepherd; he ſhall gather his Lambs with his Arms, and carry them in his Boſom. Do not all Expoſitors tell you, by Lambs in theſe places are meant young Converts, who are by St. Peter called new-born Babes? 1 Pet. 2.1, 2. and who denies but many ſuch are in Chriſt's Fold; and theſe Lambs we ſay may and ought to be baptized.

3. Who told you Baptiſm is Chriſt's Ear-mark, by which Chriſt's Sheep are diſtinguiſhed from the Devils Goats? I affirm this is no certain and diſtinguiſhing Mark to know the Sheep and Lambs of Chriſt from the Devil's Goats. Was not Simon Magus baptized? was that a Mark to know he was a Sheep of Chriſt? Thouſands may be baptized, have that Ear-mark, and yet be in the Gall of Bitterneſs, and in the Bond of Iniquity, and be the Goats of the Devil. Chriſt himſelf in John 10. lays down divers diſtinguiſhing Marks of his Sheep, but makes not the leaſt mention of this. True, when a Believer is baptized, and doth all other things Chriſt had commanded, that is no doubt one mark that he is one of Chriſt's Sheep, but the diſtinguiſhing Mark is Regeneration, and that of having his Spirit in our Hearts, and leading a godly Life. Now if any Man have not the Spirit of Chriſt, the ſame is none of his. Nom. 8.9.

As to Infants who die in their Infancy, who doubts but they may be happy, ſince Chriſt ſays, of ſuch are the Kingdom of Heaven, i. e. Kingdom of Glory? but this is no more ground for you to baptize them, than (as I have often ſaid) to give them the Lord's Supper. Does it p. 100follow becauſe ſome Infants may belong to the Kingdom of Glory, they are Members therefore of the viſible Church, and ſo Lambs of Chriſt's Fold on Earth?

And this brings me to your next, which is your fourth Argument, viz. If Infants be capable of Chriſt's Bleſſing on Earth, and of his Preſence in Heaven; if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace, and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory; then they have an undoubted right to the Priviledg of Subjects, amongſt which the Seal of the Covenant is not the leaſt.

Anſw. 1. We anſwer, and argue thus to the firſt part of your Propoſition, viz. If many of the Jews, and others who were ungodly Perſons, were capable of Chriſt's Bleſſing, i. e. of being healed of their bodily Diſeaſes, they were Subjects of Baptiſm: Is this ſound arguing? What further Bleſſing Chriſt did vouchſafe to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them, we know not, for that was the way Chriſt took oft-times in the healing the Sick; and ſo he bleſſed many Perſons that never were baptized as we read of.

2. We (as I juſt now told you) do deny Infants are Subjects of the viſible Church; therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace you intend not that, you beat the Air; you beg, and prove not; beſides it doth not follow. I ſay again, tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory, therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church; for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as another, and are to have Fellowſhip with the Saints and Houſhold of God, as well as Baptiſm.

But, ſay you, or take the Argument thus, viz. Thoſe whom Chriſt invites to him, and are received by him, his Miniſters may not refuſe, nor put from them. But Infants are by Chriſt p. 101invited to him, and were received by him; therefore the Miniſters of Chriſt may not, ought not, durſt not refuſe them into Communion with them, p. 21.

Anſw. Chriſt invited Multitudes to come unto him, and he received them ſo far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fiſhes, and to the Bleſſing of healing them of their bodily Diſtempers: May his Miniſters therefore receive all ſuch into their Communion?

2. In the days of Chriſt when he was on Earth, there were many who are ſaid to come unto him, whom he might receive into his Preſence and Company, yet his Miniſters might not baptize them, nor receive them into their ſpiritual Communion:Other kinds of coming unto Chriſt in the days of his Fleſh, than what may be ſaid now, Matth. 22.23, 35.Matt 22:23Matt 22:35 nor indeed ſo you dare not receive Infants, I mean into your Communion of the Euchariſt, &c. We read of ſome Phariſees and Lawyers that came to Chriſt, and he received them into his Company, who, it appears, came to tempt him. Alſo the Sadduces are ſaid to come unto him, who ſaid there was no Reſurrection; may Chriſt's Miniſters baptize ſuch and receive them into their Communion?

Therefore in oppoſition to what you ſay in Pag. 21. of your Book, I affirm there was then other ordinary ways of coming to Chriſt than by Admiſſion into his Church; Chriſt invited the worſt of Sinners to him, who nevertheleſs did not receive him, therefore there are ſome who muſt be excluded whom Jeſus Chriſt graciouſly invited.

Your Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10.13. Suffer little Children to come unto me, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of Heaven, doth not your buſineſs; they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace, i. e. the Church; for if they did belong to, or were of the viſible Church, as ſuch; then you need not by Baptiſm make them p. 102belong unto it: If Chriſt owns them Subjects or Members of his Viſible Church, you by Baptiſm have no need, I ſay, to add them to it; for if as they are the Seed of Believers, they are already (fidem ſoederis) not only in Covenant with God, but alſo belong to his Kingdom or Church upon Earth; All the World may ſee you go about but to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before, and without Baptiſm.

Doth Chriſt (ſay you) take Children into his Arms, and ſhall his Church caſt them out of her Imbraces?

Anſw. May I not argue thus, i. e. Doth Chriſt receive all ſorts of Perſons into his Arms of Mercy, to heal their bodily Diſtempers, of which ſome were wicked and ungodly? and ſhall the Church refuſe to receive all ſuch into her Imbraces? Beſides, all thoſe pretended Conſequences make no more for Infants to be baptized, than for their receiving the Lord's Supper, and all other Privileges that belong, as well as Baptiſm, to Adult Perſons who believe or are Diſciples.

Does Chriſt (ſay you) own them for Subjects of his Kingdom, and ſhall we allow them no better ſtanding than in the Devil's Kingdom.

Anſw. Does Chriſt own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom, and yet did not baptize them? (for that he did not) and ſhall we attempt to Baptize them,An Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, from that Text, Little Children were brought to Chriſt. as if we were wiſer than he? I muſt again turn the E…g of the Sword againſt you; If little Children were brought to Chriſt, and he did not Baptize them, then we muſt not. But little Children were brought to Chriſt, and he did not Baptize them, therefore we muſt not: Here is both Truth and Reaſon in this Argument, as Dr. Taylor confeſſes, but none of both in yours. You p. 103your ſelf confeſs Chriſt did not Baptize thoſe Infants that came to him, and whom he took in his Arms, and bleſſed; becauſe with his own Hands he baptized none at all, Joh. 4.1, 2.

Therefore ſince Chriſt, who was God, foreſaw what Contention would ariſe about the Baptizing of Infants, had it been his Will they ſhould be Baptized, would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt, have Baptized them, or have given Command to his Diſciples ſo to have done?

If therefore Infants be in ſo good a Condition as you ſay, i. e. Subjects of Chriſt's Kingdom of Grace, let us let them alone, for we cannot, by baptizing them, put them in a better ſtate than they are, without any Warrant from Chriſt; and by baptizing them not, we cannot put them into any worſer ſtate or ſtanding than they are in without it.

Well, you are angry with us, becauſe we know not but that the Children of Turks and Infidels may be in a good condition, as well as Children of Believers, though we deny not, but that the Children of Believers have greater Advantages than the Children of Infidels; namely, by the Prayers, good Education, and the good Examples of their Parents, &c.

In pag. 22. you ſay, Can any wiſe or good Man believe, that our Saviour would ſpeak ſuch favourable Words of Infants, and his outward Geſture manifeſt ſo much good-will towards them, only with an intent to enſnare and deceive us? doubtleſs it was to encourage his Miniſters to perform all charitable Offices towards them.

Anſw. 1. You miſtake, our Saviour ſpeaks very little concerning Infants, and that which is ſaid of them was accidentally ſpoken, being occaſioned by thoſe who brought little Children p. 104to him, which the Diſciples forbad; and from hence he ſpake what he did. Moreover, the Cauſe why our Saviour ſpoke thoſe words, might be more for the ſake of Parents, that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes, than to ſhew any Ordinance belonged to them: for had it been ſo, doubtleſs the Diſciples would not have forbad thoſe People to bring little Children to Chriſt. 'Tis therefore an Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and not for it, becauſe the Diſciples were appointed by their Maſter to be the Adminiſtrators of that Ordinance, on ſuch to whom it did of right belong; and had Infants been the Subjects, would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him?

2. You therefore may rather conclude, had they been the Subjects of Baptiſm, Chriſt, by not hinting any ſuch thing in the leaſt on this Occaſion, might rather have left us in a Snare, in ſpeaking nothing of it, neither here, nor at any other time.

3. Therefore Chriſt ſpeaking ſo favourably of Infants, and yet baptized them not, may teach us to judg favourably of them, and do any charitable Office towards them, but not to preſume to give them holy Baptiſm without Chriſt's Warrant, no more than any other Goſpel-Ordinance. 'Tis no matter what Calvin ſpoke, 'tis no Sin to keep ſuch out of Chriſt's Fold, which he has given no Authority to take in: nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the ſtate of dying Infants, than thoſe you call Anabaptiſts.

4. Thoſe who are capable of ſome kind of Bleſſings of Chriſt, we have ſhewed, are notwithſtanding not capable of Baptiſm.

We read not, the Diſciples baptized theſe little Children, nor none elſe.

Object. To this you anſwer; Perhaps they were Baptized before: But (ſay you) it doth p. 105not follow that the Apoſtles did not baptize theſe Children, becauſe no mention of it: the Scripture no where tells us, that the Apoſtles themſelves were baptized; ſhall we conclude therefore that they were never baptized?

Anſw. 'Tis no matter whether we read, or read not, that the Apoſtles were baptized, ſince we find it was his Precept and Practice to baptize Diſciples, or ſuch who did believe in him. We read of multitudes of Diſciples that were baptized, and we know the way of Chriſt was one and the ſame; that which was the Duty of one Diſciple, as a Diſciple, was the Duty of every Diſciple. We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread, and celebrated the Lord's Supper; could you ſhew us but a Precept for Infant-Baptiſm, or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized, we would not doubt but thoſe little Children might be alſo; but this you cannot do.

And whereas in pag. 23. you ſay, That there is not the ſame Reaſon why Infants ſhould be admitted to eat the Lord's Supper, as there is for them to be admitted to Baptiſm.

Anſw. We deny it utterly. What though the one be a Sacrament of Initiation, and the other of Confirmation? Yet pray obſerve,Like Reaſon for Infants receiving the Lord's Supper, as to be baptized. that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized, even actual Faith and Repentance, as well as actual Grace and Examination, &c. to diſcern the Lord's Body in thoſe who are to receive the Lord's Supper. If all that were to be Circumciſed, had been required to repent and believe, as in the Caſe of admiſſion to Baptiſm, you had ſaid ſomething; but the contrary appears, Male Infants, as ſuch, had a Right to that, but have no Right to this. And thus I paſs to your fifth Argument.

p. 106If the Infants of Chriſtian Parents are ſ…dorally Holy, then (you ſay) they are Subjects qualified for Baptiſm: but the Scripture pronounces ſuch Children federally Holy; therefore they are qualified for Baptiſm, and may be admitted. You cite Rom. 11.16. If the Root be Holy, the Branches are alſo Holy: where, by the Root (you ſay) we are to underſtand Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob; and by the Branches, their Poſterity, the People of the Jews. Now foraſmuch (ſay you) as the Jews, the natural Branches, are for Unbelief broken off, and the believing Gentiles are grafted in their ſtead, and ſucceed in their Privileges, in the ſenſe that they were Holy, not with an internal and inherent Holineſs, paſſing by natural Generation from Parent to Child, but with an external relative Covenant-Holineſs, grounded on the Promiſe made to the Faithful and their Seed.

Anſw. 1. I deny your Major, and ſay, If Children of Believers were federally Holy under the Goſpel, yet they are not qualified for Baptiſm, becauſe 'tis not what you imagine gives them right thereto,External federal Holineſs, gives no right to the Sacraments. or qualifies them for it; but what Chriſt hath ordained and appointed, as the alone proper and meet qualification, which is not that external relative Covenant-Holineſs you talk of, which the New-Teſtament ſpeaks nothing of, as I ſhall ſhew by and by, but actual Faith, Regeneration, or Inherent-Holineſs, which is the thing ſignified by Baptiſm; therefore a thouſand ſuch Arguments will do you no good, ſince Baptiſm is of meer poſitive Right. 'Tis Chriſt's own Law muſt decide the Controverſy, viz What Qualifications are required of ſuch who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized: prove if you can ſuch an external Federal-Holineſs, qualifies any Perſons for Goſpel-Baptiſm; for if ſuch federal or external Holineſs, qualifies Perſons for p. 107Baptiſm; then the Jews, before caſt off, might have been admitted to Baptiſm, ſince they had then ſuch a kind of federal Holineſs; which kind of Holineſs you cannot prove Believers Children are ſaid to have under the Goſpel; but if it qualified them not for Baptiſm, it cannot qualify our Children for Baptiſm. And that is did not qualify them, is evident, ſee Mat. 3.9. where ſome of the Branches of this Root came to▪ John Baptiſt to be baptized; and he refuſed to admit them with theſe words, i. e. Think not to ſay within your ſelves, we have Abraham to our Father; for I ſay, God is able of theſe Stones to raiſe up Children to Abraham. Ver. 10. And now alſo is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees. From whence it plainly appears, that that external relative Covenant-Holineſs, which qualified under the Old-Teſtament, Perſons for Circumciſion, and Jewiſh Church-memberſhip, will not qualify Old nor Young under the New-Teſtament for Baptiſm, and Goſpel Church-memberſhip.

2. I alſo deny your Minor, and ſay, the Scripture of the New-Teſtament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally Holy: The Text Rom. 11.16. ſpeaks not one word of Infants, nor one word of ſuch a kind of federal Holineſs. Mr. Tho. Goodwin, **This Paſſage of Mr. Goodwin I have out of Mr. Tombs his Book, called, Two Treatiſes, p. 67.who was a very Learned Man, urging that Text 1 Cor. 7.14. tho a Pedo Baptiſt ſaith, in the New-Teſtament there is no other Holineſs ſpoken of, but Perſonal or Real by Regeneration; about which he challenged all the World to ſhew to the contrary.

And, Sir, with your Favour, if you cannot from any place of the New-Teſtament prove there is any ſuch Holineſs ſpoken of, you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Holy Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what p. 108is meant by the Root in that place.

(1.) Some underſtand it of the Covenant.

(2.) Some of Chriſt.

(3.) Some of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob.

(4.) Some of Abraham only.

What if I agree with the laſt, and ſay, Abraham is the Root? but what Root? Why the Root of all his true ſpiritual Seed: And if ſo, the Holineſs of the Branches was real, in word, and ſpiritual; for ſuch Holineſs as is in the Root, is in the Branches. And indeed, for want of Faith, or of that real and ſpiritual Holineſs in many of his natural Branches, (for he was a two-fold Root, or Father, as I before have proved) they were rejected, or broken off for their Ʋnbelief; and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in, they having obtained the Fatneſs of the Root, or the Faith and Righteouſneſs of their Father Abraham, who was the Root or Father of all that believe. The Truth is, as Mr. Tombs obſerves, the Holineſs here meant, is firſt in reſpect of God's Election, Holineſs, perſonal and inherent in God's Intention, Epheſ. 1.4. Secondly, It is alſo Holineſs derivative, not from any Anceſtors, but Abraham; not as a natural Father, but as a ſpiritual Father, or Father of the Faithful; and ſo derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham.

And thus it appears you have darkened this illuſtrious Scripture, thinking to prove a Holineſs that the New-Teſtament knows nothing of; applying the Holineſs and Inſection to outward Diſpenſations only in the viſible Church, which is meant of ſaving Grace…, into the inviſible, and make every believing Parent a like Root to his Poſterity with Abraham to his Seed, which we deny.

But let the Jews Covenant and ſtanding before they were broken off be what it would, I p. 109am ſure no Gentile is grafted into Chriſt, but by actual Faith; nor can any be grafted into the Goſpel-Church, without the profeſſion of ſuch Faith, therefore you do but beat the Air.

The Jews, 'tis true, were broken off by their Unbelief, and were alſo no more a Church; nor is there any ſuch kind of Church conſtituted under the Goſpel as theirs was, viz. a National Church; for they amongſt the Jews, who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham, receiving Chriſt by Faith, were planted into the Goſpel-Church, and between them and Gentile Believers: Now there is no difference, Jew and Gentile ſtand in the Church now by Faith, not by external Covenant, Privilege-Right, or Holineſs. Thou ſtandeſt by Faith, O Believer; mark, not by Birth-Privilege,Mr. Cary's Solemn Call. but by Faith. Thy ſtanding is by Faith, (ſaith one) yet not thy Seed by thy Faith, but thou thy ſelf by thine, and they by their own: Faith is that by which (thou ſtanding, and not thy Seed) haſt right to ſtand in the Church, and not they: but if thy Seed have Faith, and thou haſt none, then they have right in the Church, and thou ſhalt be excluded. And though under the Law we deny not, but that the natural Seed or Progeny or Abraham, were all Holy, with an external Ceremonial or Typical Holineſs; and conſequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church-Privileges: Yet now 'tis otherwiſe, Old things are paſt away; now we know no Man after the Fleſh, 2 Cor. 5.16. That Church-State is diſſolved, and manner of admiſſion into it, by external Birth-Privilege, &c. ſo that this Text doth not help you. I ſhall further open this place of Scripture.

1. 'Tis evident the Apoſtle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans, Part of Chap. 11. of the Romans opened.a treating of the Election of Grace, and of that Covenant of p. 110Grace and Election God made with Abraham: theſe were his People which he had not caſt away, chap. 10.1. and of this ſort God had 7000 in Elias's Days,This Scripture is to be underſtood by the main Scope and Drift of the Holy Spirit therein. ver. 4. Even ſo ſaith he at this preſent time alſo there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace, ver. 5. Hence he ſays, What then Iſrael hath not obtained, &c.—But the Election hath, &c. ver. 7. He further ſhews that abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off. How were they broken off? Why, by their Unbelief, they not receiving Chriſt, but rejecting the Goſpel and New-Church-State, were broken off: but that the Gentiles might not boaſt over them, the Apoſtle ſhews there is ground left to believe all thoſe that belong to the Election of Grace, ſhall in God's due time be brought in, and ſo partake of the Bleſſings of the Goſpel-Covenant, or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham. And to prove this,Meaning all the elect Seed, or those Abraham was the ſpiritual Father of, were holy. in ver. 16. he lays down an Argument, For if the firſt Fruit be Holy, the Lump is alſo Holy; and if the Root be Holy, ſo are the Branches, ver. 16. By the Root I underſtand is meant Abraham, Root and Father, ſignifying here the ſame thing, Abraham being the Root or Father, as God repreſents him, of all the Elect, or of ſuch who believe, or the Root of all his true ſpiritual Seed.

2. By the firſt Fruits may be meant, Iſaac, Jacob, and the holy and elect Patriarchs, for they were given as the firſt Fruits to Abraham, of that Covenant and free Promiſe of God; and theſe were holy, with a true ſpiritual and internal New-Covenant-Holineſs.

3. By the Lump he may mean the whole Body of the Elect, or the ſpiritual Seed of Abraham, from the time the firſt Fruits were given him, until the Goſpel-Days, or whole Body of the true Iſrael of God, who were holy, as the Root and firſt Fruits were holy.

p. 1114. By the Branches may be meant the true elect Seed that were living then in that preſent time, as ver. 5. and theſe were holy too,The Holineſs of the Root and Branches both one, viz. true ſpiritual Holineſs. even as all the reſt, both as the Root, Firſt-Fruits, and whole Lump or Body, were holy; that is, all the true ſpiritual Seed of Abraham were like himſelf, viz. holy in a ſpiritual Senſe. And now obſerve, he ſpeaks of ſome Branches that were broken off; theſe ſeemed to be Branches, or the Children of Abraham; and ſo they were according to the Fleſh, but were like thoſe Branches, in Chriſt who bear no Fruit, and therefore taken away, John 15.2, 3, 4. He alludes to the natural Seed of Abraham, to whom he ſtood not as a ſpiritual Father or Root, but as a natural and legal Father, as they were a National Church, and ſprung from him, and theſe Branches were all broken off, viz. for rejecting Chriſt; (1.) Not broken off from the Election of Grace, for to that they did not belong, (2.) Nor were they broken off of the Goſpel-Church, for they were never grafted into that. But, (3.) broken off from being any more a Church or People in Covenant with God, the whole old State and Conſtitution being gone, and they not cloſing in with Chriſt in the Goſpel-Diſpenſation, Grace, and Church-State, are ſaid to be broken off as a loſt People; becauſe not replanted or implanted into Chriſt, and the true Goſpel-Covenant; the old being gone, quite removed and taken away, they have now no Root to ſtand upon, having loſt their legal Priviledges, as Abraham was their Father upon that foot of Account; and they not appearing to be the true Branches or Seed of Abraham, as he was the Father of all the elect Seed, or of all that believe in Jeſus Chriſt, they muſt of neceſſity from hence be broken off from being the People of God, or belonging to any Head or Root in a Covenant-Relation to God at all, the Diſpenſation being p. 112changed;2 Cor. 5.17.2 Cor 5:17 old things being gone, and all things being now become new. But this new State, Bleſſings, Rites, Church, and Church-Priviledges they rejected; and thus were ſome of the natural Branches broken off, and the Gentiles, who were wild by Nature, that is, never were in any viſible Covenant-State with God, nor in any Senſe related to Abraham as a Root, were grafted into the true Olive Jeſus Chriſt, and into the true Goſpel-Church, and ſo Partakers of the Sap and Fatneſs of the Root, and of the Olive, that is, of the ſpiritual Bleſſings and Priviledges of Abraham, and of the Covenant of Grace made with him, and of the ſweet Bleſſings and Priviledges of the Goſpel-Church, and this they receive and partake of, as being firſt grafted by ſaving Faith in Chriſt, and ſo united to his myſtical Body. But ſince there are a great Number of the old natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's ſake, that is, for the ſake of Abraham, as the Root and Father of all the Elect Seed; they ſhall in due time be grafted in again, and ſo become a People viſibly owned of God, and in Covenant with him, as all the true Seed now are, and formerly were. And if this be conſidered, what doth this Text do to prove the natural Seed of Believers are in the Goſpel-Covenant; for if the natural Seed of Abraham can lay no claim, nor have any Right to Goſpel-Priviledges, but are gone or broken off, what ground is there for us to think that our natural Offspring (as ſuch) ſhould be taken in? The Apoſtle ſpeaks not of ſuch Branches, or of being Holy with an external federal Holineſs, but of ſuch a Holineſs as was in the Root, viz. Abraham, who believed in God; and thus all his true ſpiritual Seed (who are actually Branches and in Covenant, being grafted into Chriſt by Faith) are holy: and alſo all the elect Seed of Abraham, not yet called, are decretively holy, or in God's Sight ſo, who calls things that p. 113are not, as if they were, they are all holy, The Jews not called according to the Decree of God and his purpoſe, who are in the Election of Grace, are holy.and beloved for their Father Abraham's ſake, with whom the Covenant of Grace was made for himſelf and all his true ſpiritual Seed; and 'tis from this Argument the Apoſtle argues for the calling of the Jews, and the grafting of them in again, who belong to the Election of Grace.

They therefore who would make every believing Parent to be the Root to his natural Offſpring, as Abraham was to his true ſpiritual Seed or Offspring; or a common Head or Root of their natural Offspring, as he was to his, know not what they ſay or affirm;But one common Root or Father of Believers. for then there would be ſo many common Roots and Fathers, like as Abraham was called a Root and Father; and then alſo there would be a Knowledg ſtill of Men after the Fleſh, which the Apoſtle Paul diſclaims, 2 Cor. 5.17. Moreover, the Jews who were broken off, are ſtill the natural Seed of Abraham; and if therefore this Holineſs was an external relative federal Holineſs, they are ſtill in that Senſe holy as far forth as any Children of a believing Gentile can be ſaid to be; but this 'tis evident is not that Holineſs of which the Apoſtle ſpeaks, nor is there any ſuch Holineſs under the Goſpel-Diſpenſation ſpoken of.

We ſhall come now to conſider your other Proof for federal Holineſs, which is 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving Wife is ſanctified by the believing Huſband, &c. elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.

Which Words (ſay you) are St. Paul's Anſwer to the Corinthians Scruple: Whether ſuch as had Heathen and Infidel Wives, ought to put them away with their Children, as in the Days of Ezra? The Apoſtle reſolves them, that they ought not; for, ſaith he, The unbelieving Wife is ſanctified to the believing Husband: how ſanctified? not in her Nature, but in her Uſe, ſay you; p. 114ſo as that they might lawfully cohabit and converſe together. And for your Children they are holy, not with an inherent internal perſonal Holineſs; for the holieſt Man-child is born in Sin, and by Nature a Child of Wrath; but with an external relative federal Holineſs; they are not common and unclean, like the Children of Infidels, but fit to be Partakers of the Priviledges of the Church, which the Children of Infidels are not.

1. I anſwer, you can't be ignorant but▪ that you know well enough this Text hath been fully opened by divers Learned Men, as well Pedo-Baptiſts as Anti-Pedobaptiſts, who prove the Holineſs here ſpoken of, is no ſuch external relative federal Holineſs you dream of. In the firſt Place you ſpeak right, it was about that very matter that the Corinthians wrote to St. Paul, viz. whether the believing Husband might live or cohabit with the unbelieving Wife, &c. So that the Scope and Coherence of the Text opens the matter,The Holineſs of the Ʋnbeliever and Child, all one and the ſame. and ſhews what Holineſs 'tis the Apoſtle intends, viz. only a matrimonial Holineſs; for ſhould he make their Marriage void, their Children would be unclean or illegitimate, i. e. Baſtards: for though 'tis true the Caſe was not as you ſay concerning Men and Whores, but about Husbands and Wives; yet you honeſtly ſay, It was about the Lawfulneſs of their Marriage, as in Ezra's time, when ſome were commanded to put their Wives away, becauſe the Marriage was unlawful: ſuch, ſay we, as is the Sanctification or Holineſs of the unbelieving Wife or Husband, is the Sanctification or Holineſs of the Child; and that you grant to be a matrimonial Sanctification; ſo as they might lawfully cohabit together as Man and Wife. And indeed if the Children had from hence an external relative federal …lineſs, it would follow alſo that the unbelieving Husband and Wife had ſuch an external p. 115relative federal Holineſs likewiſe, and that would open the ſame Door to baptize the unbelieving Husband or Wife: for may not another Perſon argue thus, The unbelieving Husband is holy, or ſanctified by the believing Wife, and therefore by virtue of her Faith may and ought to be baptized? you read [to] the believing Husband, and indeed I find the Greek word elſe-where ſo renders it foreign.

Let us conſider how the Apoſtle ſpeaks, viz. with reſpect to a thing preſent, or paſt, therefore he uſeth the Preterperfect Tenſe, foreign, hath been ſanctified: yea,See Mr. Tombs. in probability he ſpeaks of a Sanctification even when both were Unbelievers or Infidels; for he ſaith, foreign twice in the Preterperfect Tenſe, and he mentions the Unbeliever diſtinctly; but the Believer without the Expreſſion of his Faith, under the Title of Husband or Wife, and ſaith, your Children in Diſcrimination, without Difference, as well thoſe they had before, one was a Believer, as ſince; and if ſo, then the Children born to them, whilſt both were Unbelievers, were as holy as ſuch born after one became a Believer; and what Holineſs was in the Children then think you? even no other than that which is in all Children born in lawful Wedlock, whether their Parents are Believers or Unbelievers.

And this ſenſe is the more confirmed in that foreign Sanctification is the ſame with Chaſtity, 1 Theſſ. 4.7. ſo that the ſenſe is, the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified to his Wife, that is, lawfully or chaſtly uſed as a Husband, without Fornication in reſpect of his own Wife, whether Believer or Unbeliever, and therefore not to be refuſed. And this ſenſe only ſerves for the Apoſtle's purpoſe. The words are a reaſon why they might lawfully live together; the reaſon muſt be taken from that which was p. 116not contingent, but certain. Therefore let them live together; for though one be an Unbeliever the other a Believer, yet Marriage continues ſtill, they are Husband and Wife, and ſanctified to each others uſe in reſpect of their chaſt Ejoyment of each other, and it is no Sin in them ſo to company together notwithſtanding the Unbelief of one Party; for Marriage is honourable among all, even Unbelievers, and the Bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. and Holineſs and Honour are terms (as one obſerves) of like ſenſe in this matter, 1 Theſſ. 4.7.

Now this being granted, which inddeed muſt of neceſſity, then the Uncleanneſs muſt be underſtood of Baſtardy, and the Holineſs of Legitimation, as Mat. 2.15. for no other Holineſs neceſſarily follows to their Children in that their Parents Marriage is lawful: See the Apoſtle's Concluſion, Elſe were your Children unclean: you leave out [Elſe] for you mention Children as another Doubt which was in the Corinthians about them, which cannot be gathered from the Text nor Scope of it, but [Elſe] were your Children unclean, is brought in as an Argument to prove that which he ſaith laſt; as the Particle foreign ſhews; for the terms foreign elſe were, are argumentative as much as quoniam tum, becauſ… then uſed. So 1 Cor. 15.14, 29. Rom. 11.16. to prove that which went before.

That here the Argument is ab abſurdo, from an Abſurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted, and the Speech muſt needs be Elliptick, and ſomewhat is to be repeated to make the Speech full, as when its ſaid, Rom. 11.6. foreign; and to make the ſenſe you muſt add, foreign, becauſe p. 117of work; and ſo here foreign; for if the unbelieving Husband hath not been ſanctified to the Wife, your Children, &c. ſo that this Argument of the Apoſtle is entire, viz. If the unbelieving Husband were not ſanctified by the Wife, then were your Children unclean; but they are not unclean, but holy; Ergo, the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified to the Wife. Now the Major of the Syllogiſm is a Contradiction, the Sequel of it were not true if this Propoſition were not true: All the Children of thoſe Parents, whereof the one is not ſanctified to the other, are unclean. Now if the Sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial Sanctification, as I have proved it muſt; and the Uncleanneſs be meant of federal Uncleanneſs, ſo as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of ſaving Grace, or Church-Priviledges, the Propoſition were moſt falſe, ſith the Children of Parents, whereof one was not matrimonially ſanctified to the other, but came together unchaſtly, as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar, Jepthah of Gillead, and many others, were within the Covenant of ſaving Grace and Church-Priviledges: therefore to make the Propoſition true, (without which the Apoſtle ſpeaks that which is moſt falſe) it muſt be underſtood of Uncleanneſs by Baſtardy; for it's true of no other Uncleanneſs, that all Children of thoſe Parents, whereof the one is not ſanctified to the other, are unclean, but now are they holy: the Particle foreign, but now, is not an Adverb of time here, as Beza rightly ſpeaks, but foreign, elſe were. So foreign, but [now] is a Particle of reaſoning uſed in the aſſumption of Arguments, which ſhews it is the aſſumption of the Apoſtle's Argument, and therefore it muſt be underſtood of Holineſs oppoſite to the Uncleanneſs mentioned; p. 118but that being no other than Baſtardy, the Holineſs can be meant of no other than Legitimation. Nor is this any more an unlikely ſenſe, ſith Barſtards were reckoned among unclean Perſons, Deut. 23.2. and the Apoſtle's Expreſſion is alluſive to the Jewiſh ſpeaking and Eſtimation, and why it ſhould be thought ſtrange that Holy ſhould ſignify Legitimation, I know not, when as Mal. 2.51. foreign a Seed of God, is rendred by ſome Pedo-baptiſts a holy Seed, we read it a godly Seed, which were ſuch Children (you cannot deny) born in lawful Marriage. And that we are not alone touching this ſenſe of the Words and Matter, pray take the Teſtimony of divers Learned Men, who yet held Infant-Baptiſm, but found this Text remote to the buſineſs of proving it.

Jerom, as I find him quoted by a Learned Man,Divers Fathers and learned Men aſſert, the Holineſs of the Child is meant of a Matrimonial Holineſs, the Child is legitimate. ſaith, Becauſe of God's Appointment Marriage is holy.

See Chameri, §. 50. Sic Ambroſium, Thomam Anſelmum expoſuiſſe, & tunc Suarez appellat literalem ſenſum. That Ambroſe, Thomas, Anſelm ſo expounded it, and this Suarez calls the literal ſenſe.

Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place, ſaith thus, Therefore Paul anſwers, that the Marriages are not to be pulled aſunder for their unlike Opinions of God, 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 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 not Baſtards; therefore p. 119the uſe of Marriage pleaſeth God: and how Baſtards were unclean in a peculiar matter, the Law ſhews, Deut. Thus far Melancthon. Camerarius gives the ſame ſenſe, as Chamier obſerves.

Muſculus in his Comment on the place, confeſſeth, that he had formerly abuſed this place againſt the Anabaptiſts.

Camera on the place ſaith [For the unbelieving Husband hath been ſanctified] an unuſual change of the Tenſe; that is, ſanctified in the lawful uſe of Marriage: for without this, ſaith he, it would be that their Children ſhould be unclean, that is, infamous, and not legitimate; who ſo are holy, (that is, during the Marriage) are without all blot of Ignominy.

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

Nay, I find a very learned Divine to affirm the Ancients expounded this place no otherwiſe. None, ſaith he, that ever I met with, expound it of federal Holineſs, till the Controverſy of the Anabaptiſts in Germany aroſe.

And, Sir, ſince you are ſo ingenuous, as to confeſs in Pag. 25. that the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified in reſpect of Conjugal Relation to the Wife in a way of Marriage, in which, ſo far you agree with theſe learned Men; and this being ſo, how come you to aſſert 'tis federal Holineſs, that is ſaid to be in the Children?

What we ſay, it appears, is not a racking of the Scripture to maintain a private Opinion, therefore what you ſpeak is not true; and tho the word [holy] refers here to what we affirm with others, yet the Apoſtle ſpeaks truly. Tho 'tis granted the Children of Heathens born in p. 120lawful Wedlock, are no more Baſtards than the Children of Chriſtians: for if the Marriage were made void it would render their Children to be unclean, or baſe born. And what tho the Greek word doth ſignify in ſo many places you mention, ſpiritual Sanctification and Separation to God? ſhew us where it ſignifies external relative federal Holineſs in the New Teſtament. Yet,Mr. Tombs as one obſerves, the word is not bound up to that ſenſe, as you ſeem to intimate; for foreign is uſed for Caſtimoniam ſervo, as Stephanus in his Theſaurus obſerves out of Demoſthenes; foreign, where a Prieſt of Bacchus ſpeaks thus, foreign; I am holy and pure from the Comp… of Man: and the words foreign, chaſte, to be chaſte, to make chaſte, Chaſtity, coming from the ſame Root with foreign holy; whether foreign, to reverence, or foreign to admire, as Grammarians conceive, are uſed for Holineſs very frequently, both in Scripture and in all ſorts of Greek Writers: So that what you ſay as to the Signification of the word foreign, holy, that it cannot be taken for [legitimate] is fully cleared, and we juſtified from your unjuſt Accuſation, viz. that we wreſted the word to favour our private Opinion: neither are we out in our Logick, as you infer; but now the Inference may be, that you are weak in your Greek. And to conclude; But if it doth ſignify holy, as you ſay, why might not the Children of ſuch as the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, be ſaid to be holy, as well as the Infidel of unbelieving Wife is ſaid to be ſanctified? what is the difference between Holy and ſanctified?