Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism, Part 3 (2 of 4)

Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism · Part 3 (2 of 4)

p. 66You go on. And that because the root is holy, that is, Gods Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob extends yet unto them, when their unbeliefe shall be taken away; and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezzars dreame, Dan. 4.14, 15. you say of the Jews, their present Nation like this tree is cut down, and this holy root, the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended, bound with an Iron barre of unbeliefe, blindnesse being come upon them till the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in, and then all Israel shall be saved. In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance, who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree, but the branches, nor doth he say the tree is cut down, but the branches broken off; and here you make the Covenant the root, but a little after your words import, when you say, a holinesse derived from their ancestors, &c. that by the root you mean their Ancestors. And you say, The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended, which in some sense may be true, that is thus, the effects of Gods love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations, and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended; but in exact speech it cannot be true, sith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning, cannot be suspended or stayed, but doth alwayes take effect irresistibly. p. 67In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle, by putting in the cutting down of the tree, instead of breaking off th… branches, you much pervert the Apostles meaning; who makes the tree, that is, the Church of believers, still standing, and some branches broken off, and others graffed in. And for that of the root, it is true, it is variously conceived by Interpreters, some understanding with you the Covenant, some Christ, some Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and some Abraham only, which last I conceive to be genuine, for the expressions of some branches foreign, according, to nature,So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16Rom 11:16 and others foreign besides nature: Some naturall, some ingraffed, our not bearing the root, but the root bearing us, are plain evidences to me, that by the root, Abraham is meant; Nor know I how to make the resemblance right, but by this Exposition. Now to say, the root, that is, Abraham, is bound with an Iron band of unbeliefe, cannot have any handsome construction. But you tell us: And marke that in all this discourse, the holinesse of the branches there spoken of, is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse. Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered, who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14. for Paedobaptisme, saith, in the New Testament, there is no other holinesse spoken of, but personall or reall by regeneration, about the which he challenged all the world to shew the contrary: whereas here is according to you, a holinesse which is not personall, or as Mr. Blake speakes, qualitative, and inherent. But to go on. You say, But a derivative holinesse, a holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors, the first fruit is holy, the lump holy, the root holy, the branches holy; that is, the Fathers holy, accepted in Covenant with God, the children beloved for their Fathers sake; and when the vail of unbeliefe shall be taken away, the children & their posterity shall be taken in again, b…cause beloved for their fathers sake: Now then, if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any, or all of these three particulars, we and our children are graffed in together. Object. But here is no mention of our Infants graffing in. Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speake, but with reverence search out his meaning; there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants, neither here, nor elsewhere, when he speakes of taking away the Kingdome of God from them, and giving it to the Gentiles, who would bring forth fruit; no mention of the Infants of the one, or of the other, but the one and the other, for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents, as the branches in the root, the infants of the godly in their parents according p. 68to the tenor of his mercy, the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice.

There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked, that deserve indeed to be marked, but with an Obeliske, not with an Asteriske, as 1. That you oppose personall inherent holinesse to derivative, as inconsistent. The truth is, the holinesse the Apostle speaks of, is, first in respect of Gods Election, holinesse personall and inherent, in Gods intention, He hath chosen us that we should be holy, Ephes. 1.4. Secondly, it is also holinesse derivative, or descending, not from any Ancestors, but from Abraham, not barely, as a naturall father, but as a spirituall father, or Father of the faithfull, and so derived from the Covenant of grace, which passed in his name to him and his seed. And lastly, it shall be inherent actually, being communicated by the Spirit of God, when they shall be actually called. But this is such a kinde of holinesse, as is more then you mean, to wit, not only an adherent, or relative holinesse, which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances, but also inherent, by faith, whereby they a…e holy, as the root, that is, Abraham the father of the faithfull.

2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root, to their posterity, especially in the following words, when you say, The infants both of the Jews, and Gentiles for these outward dispensations, are comprehended in their parents, as the branch in the root, the infants of the godly in their parents, according to the tenor of his mercy, the infants of the wicked in their parents, according to the tenor of his justice: Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly, The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity, being made a holy branch in reference to their issue, they now become a holy root. This is not true, for in the Apostles resemblance, Abraham only is a holy root, or at most, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, in whose names the Covenant runs. No other man, though a believer, is the father of the faithfull, but Abraham: And the body of believers is compared to the Olive, and each believer to a branch, that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree, not in outward dispensations only, as you speak, but also in saving graces, which is mainly here intended. I remember Master Thomas Goodwin, who hath handled this matter of Pae…obaptisme, by spinning out similitudes and conjectures (fit indeed for the common people, that are more taken with resemblances then Syllogismes) rather then with close arguments: indeavoured to infer a kinde of promise of deriving holinesse from believers to their posterity, p. 69out of the similitude of an Olive, and its branches, compared with Psal. 128.3. &c. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likenesse the Holy Ghost makes. It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments, to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures.

3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle, v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their fathers sake, carry it, as if this were true of any believing parents; the Apostle meanes it of those fathers only, in whose names the Covenant was made, especially Abraham called the friend of God, Jam. 2.23. and the father of the faithfull, Rom. 4.11. and in reference to the promises made to them, they are beloved, and therefore it is added, ver. 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Lastly, you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations, are comprehended in their parents, according to the tenor of Gods justice. I intreat you to consider,Arminius l. 1. Antiperk. p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibu…, avis, abavis atavis, tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt, quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi, &c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentib… comprehendantur & censeantur. Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem. Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet, adipisceretur gratiam & sibi & posteris; contra si non crederet & sibi & posteris suis gratiam amitteret; cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt. whether this speech do not symbolize with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination, and in the end of his Treatise, where he maketh the cause, why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel, to be their forefathers fault in refusing it. Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places, and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianisme, cap. 9. And thus it may appeare, that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture, by applying that holinesse and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church, which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith, and made every believer a like root to his posterity, with Abraham to his seed.

I Am now come to your principall hold, you say.§. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14.1 Cor 7:14 And yet plainer (if plainer may be) is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children uncleane, but now they are holy.

By the way. Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that "signifies to, as well as in, and you conceive it may be here read [in] p. 70or [to] as well as [by] and though our translators following the vulgar read [by] yet Beza dislikes that reading; it might have done well in the citing of this text by you, to have given some hint of that varietie. But to follow you. You say, the plain scope and meaning thereof is this. The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience, which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of, had written this for one, whether it were lawfull for them who were converted, still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands. You doe rightly here expresse the scope of the Apostle, but you make another scope, page 25. when you say; We must attend the Apostles scope, which is to shew, that the children would be unholy, if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the barre, which lies in the other being an unbeliever, against the producing a holy seed; which I shall shew in its place, not to be the scope of the place; but only this which you first give. You then say, their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God, which was in force to the Nation of the Jews, God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people; but in Ezra's time they put away, not onelyonly their wives: but all the children that were borne of them, as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Israel: and it was done according to the Law, and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses, which that word there used signifieth, and in Nehemiahs time the children who were born of such marriages were accounted a mungrell kinde, whom Nehemiah cursed: Now hereupon these Corinthians doubted whether their children as well as their wives, were not to be accounted unclean: and so to be put away according to th…se examples. You declared rightly the scope before: but the doubt is not rightly put by you. The Corinthians had no doubt whether their children were unclean, and to be put away; for the Apostle, argues from the uncleanes…e of their children, as a thing that appeared absurd to them, they tooke it as a common received principle, that their childr…n wer… holy, as rightly Master Thomas Goodwin at Bow-church. And for the occasion of the doubt, though I deny not, but the Corinthians might know that fact of Ezra 9. and 10. yet that the reading of it was the cause of their doubt I see no evidence o… likelihood, though Master Blake pag. 12. takes it as granted, joyning with the relations, Ezra 9. and 10. that resolution, Hag. 2.12.13. as the occasion of the doubt, and Mr. Thomas Goodwin seemed confident of it that it could be no other upon a supposed agreement of matter and phrase. p. 71But for matter I see very little agreement, the cases being f…r different of two persons not under the Law ma…rying in unbeliefe, and of two persons under the Law, the one a Iew by prof…ssion, the other a stranger. And for phrases, exc…pt the word [holy] I observe no other phrase used in Ezra which is used by the Apost…e; not the phrase of unbelieving husband or wife, or sanctified to, in, or by the wife or husband, nor the phrase of unclean children, Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem. cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat, & arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi n…c cibum sumendum.and for the tearm [holy] the Apostle doth not use the phrase [holy seed] as Ezra doth. In my apprersion it is farre more likely that …e …oubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned, 1 Cor. 5.9. foreign, ….10 Not to keep company with Fornicators or Idolaters, which might occasion the question, whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving Yoke fellows?

But let us examine the Apostles resolution, you say. To which the Apostle answers, no, they were not to be put away, upon what speciall, reason soever, that law was in force to th… Jews, believing Ch…stians were not in that condition. The unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed. Were it with them, as when both of them were unbelievers, so that n…ither of th…m had a prerogative to intitle their children to the covenant of grace, thier children would be an unclean progeny: Or were the children to b… reckoned in the condition of the worser parent, so that the unbeliever could contribute more to Paganisme, than the believer to Christianity, it were so likewise. But the case is otherwise; the believing husband hath by Gods ordinance a sanctified use of his unbeli…ving wife; so as by Gods speciall promise made to believers and their seed, they were invested in, and to the most spirituall end of marriage, the continuance of a holy seed, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the worlds end. And the case is he…e in relation to posterity, for spirituall priviledges, as in other marriages for civill priviledges: as, suppose a Prince or Noble man marry with a woman of base and mean birth, though in generall it be true, that the children of those that be base, are born base, as well as the children of Nobles are bor… noble, yet here the issue hath h…nour from the father, and it is not accounted base by the basenes of the mother. This I take to be the plain meaning of the Apostles answer.

And must your Readers, thinke you, take it on your word, without shewing that the tearms are so used else where, or connexion of the words, or the analysis of the text lead you to it? But it is necessary p. 72that I discusse this matter more fully, then by returning a bare denyall, to a bare affirmation. Concerning the answer verse 13. there is no difference, all the diff…rence is concerning the reason of the resolution delivered ver. 14. and the meaning of it. There are these terms doubtfull. 1. What is meant by foreign, in the wife; and foreign in the husband. 2. What is meant by foreign is sanctified. 3. What is meant by foreign unclean. 4. What by foreign holy. It is agreed, that foreign may be read, in, to, or by. It is agreed, that to be sanctified, hath many senses, and t…at the sense wherein sanctification is taken for renovation of mind, is not here meant, for so an unbeliever is not sanctified, and the speech is in sensu composito, in a compound sense to be understood: An unbeliever, though an unbeliever, is sanctified. Nor is it true of any kind of Ceremoniall sanctification, or sanctification for enjoying religious ordinances; for such could not agree to an unbeliever. Therefore there remain only two senses, the one of an instrumentall sanctification, as Mr. Goodwin cals it, for the begetting a holy seed; The other of matrimoniall sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by another, without fornication. The former of these, your words intimate, you imbrace, when you say, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed. But against this are these reasons, 1. This could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those, who by age could not be sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidentall inability for generation, they might depart each from other, notwithstanding this reason: whereas the Apostles resolution is, of all husbands and wives; The unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, every unbelieving husband is sanctified. If meant of Instrumentall sanctification, it were true only of those that are apt for generation, yea that do actu…lly generate: whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband or wife that were of different religion. 2. If the Apostle, by being sanctified, meant instrumentally sanctified to beget a holy seed, then the reason had been thus: You may live together, for you may beget a holy seed. And so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together, from a future event, which was uncertain; It had been taken from a thing contingent, that might be, or not be: whereas the resolution is, by a reason taken from a thing certain, a thing present, or past; and therefore he useth the preterperfect tense, foreign hath been sanctified; yea, in probability he speaks of a sanctification, even when both were unbelievers: p. 73for he saith, foreign twice in the preterperfect tense, and he mentions the unbelieving, distinctly; but the believer, without the expression of his, or her faith, under the title of husband, or wife; and saith, your children, indiscriminatim, without difference, as well those you had before one of you was a believer, as since. However, it is manifest the Apostles reason is taken from a thing not contingent, but certain, not future, but present or past, and therefore not from instrumentall sanctification for the begetting of a holy seed, which was a future thing, and that contingent.

This was so manifest to Chamier, that, tom. 4. Panstrat. Cathol. lib. 5. c. 10. §. 46. he proves, that sanctification here cannot be understood of sanctification by conv…rsion of the unbeliever through the diligence of the wife, from this reason: Primum quia incerta ratio est, etsi enim nonnunquam ita factum, tamen plerumque etiam aliter, which I may apply to your instrumentall sanctification, in the same words. And after, In praeteritum dixit; sanctificatus est non autem sanctificabitur, rem jam constitutam, & peractam non autem in futurum rem incertam, aut optandam, aut expectandam. 3. When any person is said to be instrumentally sanctified for a purpose, this sanctification is ascribed to God, as Jer. 1.5. Isa. 13.3. as selecting some from others to such an use, but here the sanctification is common to all unbelieving husbands in resp…ct of their wives, and comes from that common relation, not speciall d…signation. 4. According to this Exp…si…ion, the words following could not be true, Else were your children uncleane, but now are they holy: For in this form of reasoning, this Proposition is included. Their children could not be holy without that sanctification, but that had been false, understanding it of instrumentall sanctification; and of foederall, or of reall inherent personall holinesse. For their children might be in Covenant, and be regenerated, though their parents by reason of their unbeliefe had been neither of them sanct…fied to the other, for the begetting of a holy seed. The children of Infidel-parents may be in the Covenant of grace, and be sanctified. It remaines then that the sanctification which I call matrimoniall, is here meant, which I expresse in Beza's words, thus: Fidelis uxor potest cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere (cur enim aliena conscientia eam pollueret) idcirco dicitur infidelis ille non in sese, sed in uxore (id est uxoris respectu) sanctus esse, idem quoque de altero membro judicandum est. That this may be the sense, I gather from the like use of the word, foreign 1 Tim. 4.5. p. 74where the creature of God is said to be sanctified, that is, lawfully used, in opposition to that which is to be refused; so here, the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, lawfully enjoyed as a husband, by, or to, or in respect of his wife, whether believer, or unbeliever, in this case there is no difference. And this your own words import, pag. 24. When you thus speake. He saith indeed, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband, or to the believing husband; that is, to …is use, as all other creatures are, as the bad he lies on, the meat he eats, the cloaths he wears, and the beast he rides on are sanctified to his use. 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 purpose of the Apostle. The words are a reason why they might lawfully live together: the reason must be taken from that which was not contingent, but certain, as Chamier saith truly, tom. 4. Paustrat. Cathol. l. 5. c. 10. §. 66. Haec est meus Apostoli, ut doceat fideli non discedendum a conjuge infideli, consentiente in habitationem; cui rei conficiendae ineptum …st aeque ac paul… ante argumentum ab eventu incerto ac per accidens, hinc refutatur illo sententia quae imaginatur tandem cum etiam infidelis conversus erit, generatum iri filios sanctos: Nam quid si nunquam fiat? Take it then in your sense, it had been no satisfactory reason. You may live together, though one party be an unbeliever, because you may beget a holy seed; but this wa… meerly contingent, uncertain, and by accident, not arising from their present estate, but from something future, which might not be, possibly they might have no children at all: how shall persons then be satisfied from this reason? But in the other acception of matrimoniall sanctification, the reason is plain and satisfactory: Let them, if they will, live together, though one be a believer, the other an un…eliever; for though there be difference in Religion, yet marriage continues still, they are husband and wife, and are so sanctified to each others use, in respect of their chaste enjoyment of each other, and it is no sin for them to accompany together, notwithstanding the u…belief of the one party; for marriage is honorable among all, even unbelievers, and the bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. And Holin…sse and Honour are terms of like sense in this matter, 1 Thes. 4.7. And the like resolution the Apostle gives, vers. 17.20. p. 75concerning circumcised or uncircumcised persons and servants, they might continue circumcised and uncircumcised persons and servants to their masters, notwithstanding their Christian calling, it did not dissolve those relations; so that to me it is very cleare, that the sanctification here spoken of is matrimonial sanctification. As for instrumentall sanctification, for the begetting a holy seed, I know not of any before Mr. Thomas Goodwin that hath so expounded it; But Beza and many others expound it of matrimoniall sanctification. Which is further confirmed in that the Apostle when he speakes of the believing party saith not the believing wife or husband, but the husband or wife, which is to me a plaine evidence, that the Apostle placeth the reason of their sanct…fication, not in the faith of either party, but in the relation of husband and wife. But of this more in the answering of your second argument. Now let this be granted (as of necessity it must) then the uncleannesse must be understood of bastardy, and the holines of legitimation; for no other holines follows necessarily to the children, in that their parents marriage is lawfull, and they borne of such parents, but legitimation nor any other uncleannes follows upon the denying of it but bastardy. And therefore who ever they be that interpret it of legitimation, they doe it rightly, call them how you will. And that I may cleare it, let the Apostles reason be resolved.

To conceive it we are to consider, 1. That the words [els were, &c.] are not a resolution of another doubt, but an argument to prove that which was said last, as the particle foreign shews; for the tearmes foreign els were, are argumentative, as much as quoniam tum, because then, used so, 1 Cor. 15.14.29. Rom. 11.6. to prove that which went before. 2. That here the argument is ab absurdo, from an absurditie, which would follow, if the thing to be proved were not granted, and the speech must needs be Elliptick: and somwhat is to be repeated to make the speech full, as when it is said, Rom. 11.6. foreign. If by grace, it is no more of workes, else grace were no more grace: To make the sense full, you must adde, foreign, because if of works: So here, foreign, &c. For if the unbelieving husband hath not been sanctifi…d to the wife, your children, &c. So that this is the argument of the Apostle entire: 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 p. 76is sanctified to the wife. Now the Major of this Syllogism is a conditional, and the s…qu…l of it were not true, if this proposition were not true: All the children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanct…fied to the other are unclean. Now if the sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial sanctificatiō, as I have proved it must, and the uncleannesse be meant of federall uncleannesse, so as to exclude them out of the covenant, whether of Saving-graces, or Church-priviledges, the proposition were most false, sith that children of parents, whereof one was not Matrimonially sanctified to the other, but came together unchastly, as Pharez and Zarah of Iudah, and Tamar, Iepthe of Gilead, and many others were within the Covenant of Saving graces, and Church priviledges, and therefore to make the Proposition true (without which the Apostle speakes that which is false) it must be understood of uncleannesse by b…stardy: for it is true of no other uncleannesse, that all children of those parents, whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are uncleane. And that this is the force of the Apostles reasoning, Chamier saw, Panstr. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. §. 67. when arguing against the conceit ascribed to Augustine concerning Ceremoniall holinesse, he saith thus. De ceremoniali illa sanctitate quid dicam? venit in mentem Augustino, sed Deus bone! quam aliena? profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur. Euge. Dixit Apostolus, si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in vxore fideli futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri, ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apostolus. Quid ergo? Omnesne nati ex ijs parentibus quorum alter non santificatur in altero geniti sunt in menstruis? Nunquamne Infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis? ita oportet sane aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem. I may apply the same words to Chamier his interpretation of foederall sanctity. De faederali illa sanctitate quid dicam? venit in mentem Chamiero, Calvino, &c. Sed Deus bone! quam aliena? profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur; Euge. Dixit Apostolus, si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in uxore futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri, ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri, aut falsum dixit Ap…stolus, quid ergo? Omnesno nati ex ijs parentibus quorū alter non sanctificatur in altero sunt extra foedus gratiae? Nunquāne parentes infideles aut fornicantes gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae futuros, ita oportet sane aut ridiculam han… esse interpretationem. As for the other words, but now are they holy; the particle foreign but now, is not an adverbe of time here, as p. 77Beza rightly, but as foreign else were, so foreign bu… now, is a particle of reasoning used in the assumption of arguments, which shews it is the assumption of the Apostles argument, and therefore it must be understood of holinesse opposi…e to the uncleannesse mentioned, but that being no other then bastardy, the holinesse can be meant of no other, then legitimation. Nor is this any whit an unlikely sense, sith bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons, Deut. 23.2. and the Apostles expression may be allusive to the Iewish speaking or estimation. And why it should be thought strange, that holy should signifie legitimate, I know not, when as Mal. 2.15. foreign a seed of God, rendred by your selfe, page 19. a holy seed, is all one with a legitimate seed, as Calvin rightly expounds it,Grot. annot. in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior ami…itia quā mariti & uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum, corporis, prolis vitae denique totius: quam rem esse vere sacram, id est, non humani…us, sed divinitus, repertam magno consensu g…ntes …ed: derunt.Matt 19:5 and the words must be understood; for they speak of the first institution of marriage, which was not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked (for it is spoken of the generall end of all marriages) but a lawfull seed: whereto I may adde, that marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate, as the Liturgie calls it, and as that excellent booke intituled, The union of Christ and the Church in a shadow, by R. C. prov…s. As for Mr. Blakes quaere, pag. 11. whether we will give the like interpretation of Gal. 2.15. which is, saith he, every way parallel, and answers in either of the branches? Doth the Apostle here meane we that are by birth legitimate, and not bastards of the Gentiles. I may apply to him the words of him in the Poet. Cernimus, an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt? Doe we see? or doe they that love, faine dreames to themselves? for I cannot tell how to interpret this passage, that 1 Cor 7 14. and Gal. 2.15. are very way parallel, and the one to be interpreted by the other, any otherwise then as a conceit in a dream, like as when the fancy from gold and a mountaine compounds a golden mountain. And for his argument which he drawes from the text, on which his discourse is builded, in that the Apostle contra distinguisheth, Jews by nature, and sinners of the Gentiles, (which the phrase shews the Apostle useth after the vulgar manner; for otherwise Jewes are by nature sinners, as well as the Gentiles) to prove that the Infants of believers are in the Covenant of grace, and have a birth-priviledge for baptisme, it is a riddle to mee. The meaning of the words is plainly this; we are born Jews and not Gent…les who are reputed sinner…, yet we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, to observe which by birth we were tied, and therfore Peter did ill to p. 78compel the Gentiles to Judaize, to keep the law of Moses, thereby dissembling the l…bertie they had in Ch…st, and bringing them into bondage; so that it is plaine he mentions Jewes by nature, to shew their obligation to the law by their birth, and he calls the Gentiles sinners, according to the common expression of them, as not observing the law of the Jews, and ther…fore when Mr. Blake saith, That he contend… to have the seed of believing Parents under the Gospel, to be under the first member of the division in the text. It is a strange speech, that he sh…uld contend to prove this, The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature, born to be circumcised, and to keepe Moses law. But let it be granted, that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it, tha… is, out of the Covenant, as it is said, Ephes. 2.12. the question is, in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant, and the Jewes in. It is certaine the Jews had by Gods appointment the priviledge of circumcision, and the Covenant made with Abraham did belo…g to them in speciall manner, and the Oracles were with them, Rom. 9.4, 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them, till they were by unbeliefe broken off, and that the Gentiles were dogs, uncleane persons, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, without God, without Christ, &c. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge, though it is certaine, that their birth did not intitle them to the Covenant of grace, and that the common priviledge of circumcision belonging to the Jews, did not arise from the Covenant of grace, accotding to the substance of it, but according to the admi…ist…ation that then was, nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents, but of Gods appointment according to the dispensation of his will, in that time of the churches minoritie; but he that will prove, that ther…fore our children have such a birth priviledge, because the Jews had, must make our case as the Jews, and so bring us under the Ceremoniall law. But of this wee shall have occ…sion hereafter to …peake more fully, onelyonly by the way I thought it necessary to say so much, because Master Vines referres us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise, and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy, and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to …xamine what hath any seeming strength in it. And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake, page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations; which may as truely be verified of himselfe, as of his adversaries, in that which occasioned p. 79him so to speake. Another booke lately published, being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook, and commended by Master Francis Woodcocke, one of your Assembly, as I conceive, in the 62. page of it saith. Whoever before (but B…llarmine, or such Iesuiticall interpreters of Scripture) tooke it so, putting uncleane for bastards, or holy for legitimate. And in the Margin, Note Reader, that this is Bellarmines interpretation, and after, whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine, or invented it of himselfe (as it is the happinesse of the good wits, and holy affections of Iesuiticall and Anabaptisticall heads and hearts to jump in the same thing) let others judge. Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage: For, first, although I have not now Bellarmines book by me, to examine whether it be his interpretation or no, yet I perceive by Chamier, Panstr. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. §. 55. who saith thus, Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat, non iudicare quam cui praeferat, quasi nihil interess…t, This being observed, that Bellarmine, of the three senses which he reckons, doth not shew which he preferres, as if it were of no behoofe; That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine, when he makes it his opinion, because he numbers it amongst other opinions. Secondly, that Authour not only erroneously, but also otherwise in an unfitting way, makes it a Jesuiticall interpretation only, whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine cites others then Jesuites for that interpretation; and if he be not to be believed, yet Chamier might be believed, who saith in the same place, §. 50. Sic Ambrosium, Thomam, Anselmum exposuisse, & hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum: That Ambrose, Thomas, Anselme, so expounded it, and this Suarez cals the literall sense. And before Bellarmine, Musculus in his Commentarie on 1 Cor. 7.14. alleageth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it, and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists, yet he found that of matrimoniall sanctification and sanctity, to be the right sense. And Melancthon, and Camerarius doe expound it of legitimation: Gagnaeus Parisiensis, in loc. also so expounds it: and Osiander, Enchir. controv. cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol. in loc. And as for that of Foederal holinesse, I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition, the Ancients expounding it otherwise, None that ever I met with, expounding it of federall p. 80holinesse, till the controversie of the Anabaptists in Germanie arose.

You say, But this cannot be the meaning, I clearly prove by these foure arguments. First, uncleannesse, and holinesse, when opposed one to the other, are never taken for civilly lawfull. Nor do I like the calling of it civill holinesse, for it is not from the lawes of men, but the institution of God, and therefore I rather call it matrimoniall holinesse. You say, Vncleanesse, indeed, when opposed to cleanesse, may be taken in severall senses, An unclean vessel, an unclean cloth, an unclean garment, when opposed to clean, may signifie nothing but dirty or spotted: but when unclean…sse is opposed to holinesse, it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense, referring to a tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types to us of the visible church; and holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses. It is hard for you to make good, nor is it materiall for me to disprove that which you say, That when uncleanesse is opposed to holinesse, it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense, referring to a tabernacle use, to a right of admissi…n into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types to us of the visible church. For if it were true, yet the sense I give might stand good, sith uncleanesse for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle, if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord, were an exclusion from the tabernacle; and so the sense might be good, that uncleanesse is bastardy, though that which you say were true, that uncleanesse, as opposed to holinesse, refers to a tabernacle use. Howsoever it is enough, that I have proved, that the word uncleanesse must be taken here for bastardy, if the Apostles reason stand good. Yet let me intreat you to look a little on that text, 1 Thes. 4.7. and tell me, whether uncleanesse there be not opposed to holinesse, and whether it be taken in a …acred sense, refer…ing to a tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types to us of the visible church. Me thinks, by uncleanesse is meant fornication, and by holinesse, chastity; and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards, and legitimate, which are cons…quent on fornication, and lawfull generation. And the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 7.1. opposing filthinesse of the flesh, to holinesse, makes me conceive you were mistaken in your speech, when you say, In that opposition, uncleanesse is alwayes taken p. 81in a sacred sense.And when you say, that Holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons and things, from common to sacred uses. Me thinks you might have considered, that 1 Thes. 4 3. the holy Ghost saith thus: This is the will of God, foreign, your holinesse, i.e. saith Beza, that you abstain from fornication. Now, abstinence from fornication, you will not say is separation from common to sacred uses. And when the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 7.34. that she may be holy in body, is it not meant, that she may be chaste?

You go on. Even the meats and drinks of believers, sanctified to them, serve for a religious end and use, to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost. Is it a religious end and use, to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost? Then the godly, in eating and drinking, do an act of religion, because they ref…esh themselves. It is true, when their meats are sanctified to them, they use them religiously, but not because they refresh their bodies, which are the temples of the Holy Ghost, but because they use them with the word, and prayer. If refreshing the temple of the Holy Ghost, be a religiou… use and end, then the inordinate eating of a godly man, or the feeding of a godly man by a prophane person, is a religious use and end. You adde, So that they have not only a lawfull, but a holy use of their meat and drink, which unbelievers have not, to whom yet their meat and drink is civilly lawfull. This is true; but how this proves, that unclean may not be taken for bastard, and holy for legitimate, I see not.

You go on. And whereas some say, 1 Thes. 4.3 4.5. that Chastity, a morall vertue found among heathens, is called b… the name of Sanctification: Let every one possesse his vessell, not in the lust of concupiscence, but in sanctification and honour. I answer, Chastity among heathens is never called sanct…fication, but among believers it may be called so, being a part of the new creation, a branch of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God, a part of the inward adorning of the temple of the holy Ghost. But this is bu… a shift; for why may not an unbeliever he said, as w…ll to possesse his vess…ll in holines, is to be sanctified? B…sides, are not sanctification, and cleannesse, and honour, all one in these passages? And doth not the Apostle say, Heb. 13.4. that Marriage is honourable among all, (even Infidels) and the bed und…filed? And though the word foreign holinesse, be not found among the heathen writers, as p. 82being (so farre as I can finde) a word used only among Ecclesiasticall writers; yet foreign is used for c…st…moniam servo, I preserve chastity: as Stephanus, in his Thesaurus, …bserves out of Demosthenes foreign, where a Priest of Bac…hus speaks thus: foreign, I am holy and pure f…om the company of man. And the words, foreign, chaste, to be chaste, to make chaste, chastity; comming from the same root with foreign holy: whether foreign to reverence, or foreign to admire, as Grammarians conceive, are used for holinesse and chastity, very frequently, both in Scripture▪ and in all sorts of Greek writers. Gr…t annot. in Ma…. 5.8. So ent pro eodem usurpari foreign & foreign.So that what you say, that [holy] cannot be taken for [legitimate] but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church; I… is so farre from being true, that notwithstanding any thing you have said, yet that sense both may and must be, if the Apostles reasoning be good. But you assault it with a second Argument.

Secondly, this being so, had this been the meaning, Else were your children uncleane, but now they a…e holy; Else had your children been bastards, but now they are legi…imate: The Apostles answer had not been true, because if then one of the parents had not been a believer, and so by being a believer sanctified his unbelieving wife, their children must have been bastards: whereas we know their children had been legitimate, being borne in lawfull wedlock, though neither of the parents had been a believer. Marriage, being a Second Table-duty, is lawfull (though not sanctified) to Pagans, as well as to Christians: and the legitima…ion, or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the faith, but upon the marriage of the parents; Let the marriage be lawfull, and the issue is legitimate, whether one, or both, or neither of the parents be believers, or infidels: Take but away lawfull marriage betwixt the man and the woman, and the issue is illegitimate, whether one, or both, or neither of the parents are believers, or infidels. Withall, if the children of heathens be bastards, and the marriage of heathens no m…rriage; then there is no adultery among heath…ns, and so the seventh Commandement is altogether vain in the words of it, as to them.

p. 75This is indeed the principall reason that hath prevailed with many, to interpret this passage of federall holinesse, not of matrimoniall; because they conceive here is a priviledge ascribed to the believing wife, or husband, in respect of the faith of the one person, not common to such with infidels. Whereas the holinesse here expressed is not from the quality of faith, but from the relation of husband and wife. For that onelyonly was agreeable to the Apostles purpose: to assure them that in the disparity of religion they might live together still, because the unbeliever, though an unbeliever, notwithstanding his infidelity, is and hath been still lawfully injoyed and sanctified to his wife. So that the force of the Apostles reason is taken from the lawfulnesse of marriage amongst infidels. This was so plaine to Chamier. tom. 4. Panstr. Cathol. lib. 5. cap. 10. sect. 63. that he writes thus; Hoc argumento excluditur ea sanctitas quam nonnulli praetulerunt ab educatione, nam ab ista peni…ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli. Haec enim incerta est: nôrunt enim omnes, & docet experientia, neque omnes viros lucrifieri, quod etiam innuit Apostolus, ne que omnes liberos obsecundar… sanctae educationi. Praeterea si qui obsecundent, tamen hic effectus est accidentalis, non autem ex ipsius matrimonii naturâ. And this is confirmed, that the sanctification of the husband, and the holinesse of the children, comes from the nature of marriage, because the Apostle when he speaks of the unbelieving party, names him or her, under the terme of unbelieving husband or wife, because the doubt was of the unbeliever, in respect of his unbeliefe; but when he speakes of the believing party, how ever the vulgar Latine thrusts in [believing] twice, and one old copy Beza found, that had in the Margin, foreign & foreign. believing wife and believing husband, and a copy of Clermont had foreign, to the husband a brother, yet all the copies besides reade simply without that Epithet [to the wife, to the husband] without believing. The reason cannot be conceived righ…ly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a believer, as well as a wife or a husband; yet in this passage they were considered onelyonly as husband or wife, and not as believers; to intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from conjugall relation. So that whereas you say, that upon the interpretation given, it would follow that there would be no lawfull marriage amongst heathens, or legitimate children, because you conceive the sanctification & holinesse here proper to believers and their children, the contrary p. 76is most true, and most agreeable to the Apostles meaning, who doth not here ascribe the sanctification, either of the unbeliever, or the children, to the faith of either partie, but to the conjugall relation, and mentions here no priviledge, but what was common to all married persons amongst the heathens. Thus is your principall argument answered; I passe on to the next.

You say besides S ^t Pauls reason had no strength in it, supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it. Their doubt (say they) was that their marriage was an unlawfull wedlocke, and so consequently their children bast…rds. You doe not herein rightly set downe your adversaries explication of the Apostle; the doubt was onelyonly, whether the beleever might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall use: the Apostles resolution was they might, for they were sanctified each to other, notwithstanding the unbeliefe that was in the one partie; for if it were otherwise, their children were bastards. There was no doubt, as you say, of their childrens bastardy; the Apostles reason supposeth it was out of doubt with them. You adde. Now marke what kinde of answer they make the Apostle give. Were you not lawfull man and wife, your children were bastards; but because the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband, &c. because your marriage is a lawfull marriage, your children are legitimate. What strength of reason is in this? if this had been their doubt or question, whether their marriage were not a nullitie; the Apostle by his Apostolike authoritie, might have definitively answered, without giving a reason, your marriage is good, and your children legitimate. But if Paul will goe about to satisfie them by reason, and prove them to be mistaken, it behoved him to give such a reason, which should have some weight in it, but this hath none. Set their doubt (as these men frame it) and the Apostles answer (as these men interpret it) together, and you will easily see the invalidity of it. Wee doubt (say the Corinthians) wee are not lawfull man and wife, and that therefore our children are bastards. No, saith Paul, you are mistaken, and I prove it thus; Were you not lawfull man and wife, your children were bastards, but because you are lawfull man and wife, your children are not bastards. Is there any argument or proofe in this?

As you frame your adversaries meaning, it may be thought ridiculous, but your mistakes must not be charged on them for their errour. All this passage of yours is built on this, that you make that the doubt which was not the doubt, to wit, whether their children p. 77were bastards, and make that the conclusion, which is the medium to prove the conclusion by; for it was so far from being a doubt whether their children were bastards, that the Apostle argues from this as an absurditie he knew they would not grant, and therefore supposed this to be without doubt with them, that their children were not bastards, but legitimate. And herein M^r Thomas Goodwin spake rightly, that the Apostle supposed it to be a received principle with them, though his paraphrase, but now are they holy, that is, you see your children baptized, is his owne comment, and that not onelyonly a very bold, but absurd one, that I say no worse of it. And whereas you say, the Apostle might by his Apostolike authoritie, have definitively answered, 'tis true, and so he did, as appeares from ver. 12. and yet he might give a reason ad homines, to the men, to convince them, which it may be, as you make it, is invalide, but rightly conceived, as the Apostle framed it, is convincing and cogent.

You say. Fourthly, according to this their interpretation, the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quieting of their consciences; their doubt was whether according to the example in Ezra, they were not to put away their wives and children, as not belonging to God, as being a seed whom God would not owne among his people. Now what kinde of quiet would this have given them, to tell them that their children were not bastards? Wee know the Jewes did not put away their bastards, as not belonging to the Covenant of God, Pharez, and Zarah, and Jepthah, and innumerable others, though bastards, were circumcised, and not cut off from the people of God.

All this argument is grounded on a mistake, as if the question were, whether they were to put away their wives and children, as not belonging to God, and that according to the example in Ezra. Whereas that is but a conjecture, that they had any relation in this matter to the action mentioned in Ezra: and some other occasion is as likely, if not more likely, as hath been shewed, and it is certaine there were no doubts at all about the putting away of their children; for the Apostles argument proceeds upon this as a thing undoubted with them, that their children were not uncleane, but holy. What their doubt indeed was, and how the Apostles answer fits it is shewed before.

You goe on. And whereas some object out of Deut. 23.2. that bastards did not belong to the Covenant among the Jewes, because God there forbad a bastard to come into the Congregation of the Lord. I answer, that is p. 78meant onelyonly of bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing; and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church; as is manifest not onelyonly by what hath been now said of Jepthah, and others, who were circumcised, and offered sacrifices, and drew nigh to God, as well as any other, but the very Text alledged gives sufficient light, that it cannot be meant otherwise, because in that place who ever is an Eunuch or wounded in his stones, hath the same exclusion from the Congregation of the Lord, and I hope that none will dare to say, that none such are holy to the Lord; if they should, the Scriptu…e is full enough against them; that putting away in Ezra was of an higher nature then illegitimation, and therefore it behooved the Apostle to give another manner of satisfaction to their doubtfull consciences, then to tell them their children were not bastards: Therefore I conclude, that this holinesse being the fruit of one of the Parents being a believer, must be meant of some kinde of holinesse which is not common to the seed of them whose parents are both believers, and that is enough for our purpose.

What others object I know not, the Text, Deut. 23.2. was produced by mee in my papers in Latin, above-mentioned, in these words, Et quidni simili allusione ponatur foreign pro spuriis, foreign pro legitimis, nam spurius inter impuros, Deut. 23.2. And why may not b… a like allusion, uncleane be put for bastards, and holy for legitimate? for the bastard is put among the uncleane, Deut. 23.2. By which you may perceive, that I produced it not to prove, that basta…ds did not belong to the Covenant among the Jewe…, or were to be denied circumcision, or to be put away, and therefore in what respect they are to be excluded from the Congregation of the Lord, is not to my purpose materiall, but onelyonly to shew, that bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons by the Law; which I thinke, you will not deny, sith you confesse they were excluded from bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing; and therefore the Apostle might fi…ly by allusion put uncleane for bastards. Against this there being nothing in your answer, nor any thing else, which hath not been replyed to before, I passe to the two objections you bring in against your interpretation.

You say, Yet there remain two Objections to be answered, which are made against this our interpretation: First, the unbelieving w…e is here said to be sanctified as well as the child is said to be holy; and the originall word is the same for both, one the Verb, the other the Noune; if then the p. 79childe is holy, with a federall holinesse, then is also the unbelieving wife sanctified with a f…derall sanctification; and so the wife, although remaining a Heath…n, may be counted to belong to the Covenant of Grace. I answer, indeed there would be weight in this Objection, if the Apostle had said, The unbelieving wife is sanctified, and no more, as he simply saith the children are holy; but that he doth not say: He saith indeed, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband; or, to the believing husband, that is, to his use, as all other creatures are; as the bed he lies on, the meat he eats, the clothes he wears, the beast he rides on, are sanctified to him; and so this sanctifiednesse of the wife, is not a sanctification of state, but only of use, and of this use to be sanctified to the believing husband, whereas the holinesse and sanctification that is spoken of the children is a holinesse of state, and not only a sanctification to the parents use.

These words in your Margin [foreign the Greek Preposition, signifying to, as well as in, as Gal. 1.16. 2 Pet. 1.5. Acts 4.12. 1 Cor. 7.15.] being the Texts I produce in my Latin paper, that [foreign] may be translated [to] as well as [by] give me some occcasion to think that this Objection is produced in reference to these words in my Latin paper, where arguing against the rendring of [foreign by] as if the faith of the wife were the cause of the sanctifying the unbelieving husband; I say thus: Nemo enim dixerit fidem uxoris sanctificare virum infidelem foederaliter, ita ut baptismi capax sit infidelis maritus propter fidem uxoris (quod tamen pace tantorum virorum dictum sit, tam benè sequitur ex hoc loco, quam filium sanctum esse foederaliter, & baptismi capacem propter fidem parentis…) for no man will say, the faith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally, so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of Baptisme for the faith of the wife (which yet, with the leave of so great persons be it said, doth as well follow out of this place, as that the sonne is federally holy, and capable of baptisme for the faith of the parent). In which words, when I say, it follows out of this place, my meaning is, so translated and expounded as before; that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, that is, by the faith of the wife, as the child is holy, it would follow, that the unbelieving husband should be in the Covenant as well as the child, and so be baptized: for the faith of the wife is said to sanctifie according to this reading and exposition, the one as well as the other. And so much I conceive you acknowledge, in saying p. 80in this Objection, there would be weight if the Apostle had said the unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more. But this only I put in by a parenthesis, as not building the main of the interpretation I gave on it, knowing that Beza renders it [in uxore, in the wife] and then the Objection hath no place. And seeing you do render [foreign] in, or to, and expound the sanctification to the believers use, as all other creatures are. I confesse, against you that Objection is not in force, and therefore your answer may be acknoweldged right in this particular. I passe to the second Objection.

That holinesse of the children is here meant, which could not be unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other; which is the force of the Apostles arguing, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, else were not the children holy, but unclean; but federall holinesse of children may be where parents are not sanctified, one in, or to the other: as in bastardy. Davids childe by Bathsheba, Pharez and Zarah Judah's children by Thamar, the Israelites children by the Concubines, Abrahams son Ishmael by Hagar, &c. in which case the children were federally holy, and accordingly were circumcised, and yet the Harlot not sanctified, in, or to the Adulterer, or Fornicator, though a Believer.

This Objection I own, having first proved that the santification of the unbeliever, is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation, only where you say, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, I would say as the Apostle doth, to the wife or husband. Now to this Objection you say, "I answer, but I pray you tell me where you answer it, I finde no answer to it here, except it be an answer to an Argument to deny the conclusion. In the Argument you neither shew faultinesse in the form nor matter, which was the way of answering I learned in the Schools where I was bred. You say, we must attend the Apostles scope: true, but when we are to answer, we must attend to the Objection, and shew the weaknesse of it. You say, which is to shew, that the children would be unholy if the faith, or believership of one of the parents, could not remove the barre which lies in the other, being an unbeliever, against the producing of an holy seed, because one of them was a Pagan or unbeliever, therefore the childe could not be a holy seed, unlesse the faith or believership of the other parent could remove this barre.

You made the scope at first right, to resolve them whether they might lawfully retain their Infidell wives or husbands; but the scope p. 81you now give, is but a meer figment, not the Apostles.

You say, now this can have no place of an argument in any case where one of the parents is not an Infidel.

I know not what you mean in this passage, unlesse it be you would answer thus; the Apostles scope is otherwise then the objector takes it, therefore he can make no argument, nor objection, and so I need not make any answer, which is a kinde of answering I am not acquainted with.

You go on: But this was not the case amongst the Jews, Hagar and Thamar, and the concubines, however sinfull in those acts, yet themselves were Believers, belonging to the Covenant of God, and that barre lay not against their children, as it did in the unbelieving wife.

This passage is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objection, that children may be federally holy, where the one parent is not sanctified to the other; and that the Major is true, which rests on this, that the children could not be holy, unlesse one parent were sanctified to the other, you will not deny it; you do your self frame the force of the Apostles reason thus; both pag. 19. when you say, were it with them, as when both of them were unbelievers their children would be an unclean progeny: and pag. 21. when you say, the Apostles answer had not been true, because then, if one of the parents had not been sanctified to his unbelieving wife, their children must have been bastards.

In these and other passages, you acknowledge the force of the Apostles reason, to consist in this: that holinesse of the children is here meant, which could not be, unlesse one of the parents were sanctified to the other; wherefore the conclusion stands good, that the holinesse here is not federall holinesse.

But you adde, foreign, a wise remedy. Indeed, if a believing man or woman should adulterously beget a child, upon a Pagan or Heathen, or unbeliever, there this objection deserves to be further weighed, but here it comes not within the comp…sse of the Apostles argument. This is just nihil ad rhombum, nothing to the point; as if you had said, I will not answer the objection which is made, but if you make it thus or thus, I will answer it; and thus I have at last gotten your chief hold, which you had best manned, but in the close you quitted it.

p. 82You adde as over-measure, certain Reasons:

1. From Gods will , which were enough, if you could prove it.

2. From Gods honour, in which you say, so i… i… with the Lord, he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devils kingdome, will not for his own glories sake permit the Devill to come and lay visible claim to the sons and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High; which speech, if true, well fare Cain and Cham, and Ismael and Esau, and innumerable others, whom the Devill hath had visible claime to by their works and profession.

3. For the comfort and duty of these who are in covenant with him. Indeed it were a very great comfort, if you could make it good which you say; but we must be content with that comfort God is pleased to give, and not for our comfort speak that of God which is not true.

You say, you have been the larger upon those two first conclusions, because indeed, the proving of these gains the whole cause , and so I have been the larger in answering, as conceiving by loosing these you loose the cause.

You say, The most learned of the Anabaptists do professe, that if they knew a child to be holy, they would baptize it. It is likely they that said, or professed so, did declare in what sense, and for what reason they so spake. But because these are but Rhetoricall passages, I leave them, and passe to your third Conclusion, which you …hus expresse.

p. 83§. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place, room, and use of Circumcision.THe Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation, to be administred unto them, who enter into covenant with him; Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs incarnation, Ba…tisme since the time of his incarnation.

Th… conclusion, as you here set it down, may be granted, that the Lord hath appointed and … a Sacrament or Seal of initiation, to be administred to them that enter into covenant with him, circumcision for the time of that administration, which was before Christs incarnation, Baptisme since the time of his incarnation. But this is not all you would have granted; for it would stand you in no stead, and therefore, in stead of it, pag. 33. in the Repetition, you put this conclusion for your third; that our Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision; and your meaning is, that it so succeeds, that the command of circumcising Infants should be virtually a command to baptize Infants, as you expresse your self, pag. 35. Now this I deny. That which you alledge for this is, First, the agreement that is between Cicumcision and Baptisme: Secondly, the Text, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I shall examine both, and consider whether they fit your purpose.

You confesse they differ in the outward Elements, and that is enough to shew that the command for the one, is not a command for the other, except the Holy Ghost do so interpret it. But you say, they agree in five or six particulars. The first, that they are both of them the same Sacrament for the spirituall part; which is to be granted, but with its due allowance: For, though Baptisme signifie in part the same thing that Circumcision did; namely, sanctification by the spirit, justification and salvation by Jesus Christ, and faith in him; yet it is true that there is a vast difference betwixt them, because Circumcision signified these things as to be from Christ to come, and therefore it was a sign of the promise of Christ to come from Isaac; but Baptisme signifies these things in the name of Christ already manifested in the flesh, crucified, buried, and risen again. And because Circumcision did signifie Christ to come out of Isaac, therefore it did also confirm all the promises that were made to Abrahams naturall Posterity, concerning their multiplying, their bringing out of Egypt, their settling in the Land of Canaan, and the yoak of the Law of Moses, which was to be in force till Faith came, that is, till Christ was manifested in the flesh, Gal. 3.19.23, 24, 25. Gal. 5.2, 3.

The second agreement you make, is that both are appointed to be p. 84distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the Devils people. This must be also warily understood; for though it be true they are both d… stinguishing signes, yet not so, but that they may be Gods people, who were not circumcised, nor are baptized. God had a people in Jobs and Lots families, who were not circumcised, nor to be circumcised; and there may be a people of God, wh… …re not bapti…ed, as the thief on the crosse, the Catechumeni dying a…o…e baptisme, many martyrs, and others, that have dyed without Baptisme. And in the signes themselves there is a great difference, both in the acting of them; the one of them was with blood, the other without; the one took away a part of the body, the other not: and after the acting, the one was a permanent signe, the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain.

The third agreement is, both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church, which may be granted; yet in the solemnity there was a great difference: the one to be done in a private house, by a private person, the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed.

The fourth agreement is, both of them to be administred but once, which I conceive true thus; to wit, that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once; but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie, or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize, I yet expect. Yet this parity hath its disparity: For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day, but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution.

Your fifth, And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes, untill they were circumcised, nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians, untill they be baptized. If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews, I cannot assent unto you: For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old, but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse, untill they cam… to Gilgal, and all the females were members, though they were not to be circumcised. The reason was, because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel; and therefore he would have the servants born in the house, and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed, circumcised. And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians, the accounting of them as visible members, it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of p. 85the Christians untill they be baptized, unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church, and oppose Whitaker, and others of the Protestant Divines herein.

The last agreement is, that none but the circumcised might eat of the Pasch… L…mbe, which is true of those that ought to be circumcised, but it …s not true simply taken: for the females were to eat, though not circumcised. On the other side you say, none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper. This you affirm, but you bring no other proof for it, but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover, and Baptisme and the Lord… Supper, which can make but a Topick argument, and that à simili, which i… of all other the weakest Place to prove by, proportions are weak probation, saith R…therfu…d, Due right of Presbyteries, Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'Tis true, we find persons ordinarily upon their fi…st call were baptized, and then after received the Lords Supper; and it is true, that 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13. baptizing is put before eating and drinking, and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so; yet I make question, whether, if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely, and is not yet baptized, suppose for want of a Minister, or out of scruple, at the way of baptizing only allowed, or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide, as it was of old, or the like reason, should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper, and there receive it with love to Christ, whether he should sin, because not baptized, as the Jews should sin, that did eat the Passeover not circumcised: For in the Jewes case a command is broken, not here, and so no transgression. If he come without examination of himself, not discerning the Lords body, he sins, he breaks the command, 1 Cor. 11.28. But where is the command that he must be baptized first? And for the same reason, I question, whether a Minister can justifi… it before God, if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper, because not baptized, for the aforesaid reasons. By this which I have said, you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are, and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme; and therefore how poor a proof, or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme, for the making a command to circumcise Infants, a command to baptize Infants, without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so. All these agreements; y…a, if there were an h…ndr…d more, cannot make it any p. 86other than an humane invention, if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular. But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent, let me parallel the Priests of the Law, with the Ministers of the Gospel, as you do Circumcision with Baptisme. As God appointed Aerg…s and his sons to Minis…e… in the time of the Law, so the Ministery of the Gospel now; the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision, and they agree in many things: As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, Mat. 2.7. Deut. 33.10. so must the Bishop be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.2. As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them, Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching, Gal. 3.1. As the Priest was for the people of God, so the Minister of the Gospel: As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast, so the Minister in his heart; as the one was to blesse, so the other was to pray for them: As the Priest had a consecration, so the Minister is to have an ordination: As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling; so neither in the other: And many more such agreements might be assigned; will it therefore follow, that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory, is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory, or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod, should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice, as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance; or, that therefore tythes are due to Ministers, jure divino, by divine appointment, as Bishop Carleton, D^r. Sclater, and others, from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer: or that ordination may be by the people; because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites, as M^r. Mather in answer to M^r. Herle; or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy, and so Bishops above Presbyters, as the Prelates, Bilson, Daven…nt, D…terminat, Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue; or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace, because Eli and Samuel were Judges, as the Prelaticall Doctors; or that there must be a Pope, because there was an High Priest, as Bellarmine and the Papists. If the consequence be not good in the one, neither is it in the other. You say in the next words, that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover. This, I confesse, goes current, but the Scripture doth not say so, that I know. The Scripture expresly saith, that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5.7. It i… true, the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal p. 87Supper, but it is but our collection, that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover, and substitute the other in its room. In other places we rather finde the Lords Supper to answer the Manna, and the Rock, or water out of the Rock in the Wildernesse, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. It is true, the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper. But that was not only from the Passeover, but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it; yea, from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices. It is true, 1 Cor. 5.8. we are required to keep the feast, and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper; but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper, or as Beza paraphraseth it, totam vitam in justitia & integritate consumamus, let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity, or something else, sub judice lis est, is a controversie undetermined. But let it be granted, that the Lords Supper imitates (I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover, for that was a sacrifice, and Christ offered, is only in stead of it) the Paschal Supper, which because of the time, and the form of words used in the institution, and such like circumstances, is very probable, and therefore there is great Analogy between them; yet he that should argue, therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread, as the Papists; or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar, as was the Paschal Lamb; or that the Lords Supper is not to be administred but in a Church, gathered after the Church-way, as the Elders of New-England, in answer to the nine Positions; or that we must keep an Easter, and then have the Lords Supper, as in ancient and later times hath been conceived, you would reject these things as ill gathered, and perhaps call them superstitious. But whether these, and more like to them, do not as well follow, as baptizing of Infants, from circumcision of Infants, because of their Analogy, I leave to your self to consider. You adde, And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example, who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews, and when he set up the new Christian Church, he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme.

It is confessed, that Christ was circumcised and baptized, but that it was to teach us by his example, either your conclusion, or the agreements between Baptisme and Circumcision which you set down, or that which next goes before your speech, the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover, remains yet to be proved, much more that p. 88which you drive at, that there is such a parity, or rather identity between Baptisme and Circumcision, that the command to circumcise Infants, is a command to baptize Infants. The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple, and the offering for him to accomplish the Law, under which it pleased him to be made of a woman, Gal. 4.4, 5. and it had a spirituall use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, Col. 2.11. This is certain, we have cleare Scripture for it; if you shall shew the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christs circumcision, I shall imbrace them with both arms. The Baptisme of Christ was that Christ might fulfill all righteousnesse, Mat. 3.15. But how to expound this speech, hath not a little difficulty. Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it: this seems to me most likely, that righteousnesse is there taken for that which was appointed by God, either in secret instructions, or some particular Prophecy from God. But then if it be asked why God did appoint it, this seems most likely, sith it is plain that this was the time of Christs anointing with the Spirit, as appears, Luke 4.18. that Baptisme was used to signifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on, which me thinks, the story it self, and the speech of Peter, Acts 10.37, 38. do evince. That which you say, That being to set up the new Christian Church, he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme, seems not probable; partly, because Christ did not set up in his own dayes on earth a visible Church, Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish; partly, because his Baptisme was of a far higher nature then our Baptisme, Who was anointed with the oyl of gladnesse above his fellows, Heb. 1.9. and therefore his Baptisme was of a transcendent nature above ours. But if it were granted that Christs Baptisme were to teach us, that he that is a member of the Church, must be initiated by baptisme, it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it, sith Christ, who was the holy One of God, and the Angel of the Covenant, and the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed, to whom the promises were made, in whom the Covenant was confirmed, Gal. 3.16, 17. yet was not baptized, till he began to be about thirty yeers of age, Luke 3.23. So that you see how little help you have from your parities, or Christs example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptizing Infants. But you have yet another string to your bow, out of Col. 2.11, 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also.

p. 89You say, of this conclusion, there i… no great doubt▪ but bec…use some of the Anabaptists do deny the S…crament of Baptisme to succeed into the room, place, and use of Circumcision, be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken, before I examine your proof for it. The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain, is that the Sacrament of Baptisme doth succeed in the room, place, and use of Circumcision: Succession properly notes a coming after another, as we say, Kings succeed one another, High priests one after another. To speak exactly, Baptisme (I do not say the Sacrament of Baptisme) was a concomitant of Circumcision, if not ancienter; For it is well known, that Baptisme was in use among the Jews, in the initiating of Proselytes for many yeers together with circumcision, as may be seen in Selden, de jure naturali, & gentium juxta discipl. Heb. lib. 2. cap. 2, 3, 4. Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17. There is much of this in many Authors beside. But I suppose you cannot be ignorant of what M^r. Lightfoot hath in his Sermon, entituled Elias Redivivus, pag. 11. where he makes it as ancient as Jacob. Gratius Annot. in Mat. 3.6. hath these words: Cum verò peregrini abluti & non circumcisi solis legibus tenerentur, quos Deus toti hominum generi dederat, intellectu facile est ablutionem hanc fuisse inter vetera instituta orta, ut arbitror, post magnum diluvium in memoriam purgati mundi: unde illud celebre apud Graecos, foreign, certe baptismum foreign esse diluvio etiam in Petri Epistola legimus. But it may be the Sacrament of Baptisme came after; neither is that in exactnesse of speech true, sith Circumcision was a great while in force after John began to baptize, which you will not deny to be the same Sacrament with ours. But let it be granted it succeeds, that is, comes after Circumcision, sith it continues now circumcision is taken away, yet the sense in which you can rightly make it succeed into the room, place, and use of Circumcision, will be brought into a narrow room, too strait to settle Baptisme of Infants in it.

Room and place are properly either the same, or differ only as locus communis & proprius, common place and proper; so Baptisme, which is an action, hath no place or room properly. If you mean by the room and place, the subjects to be baptized, or baptizing, it is not true, except in part; some of the baptized and baptizers only were circumcised, and to be circumcised; some that were not to be circumcised, as women, were to be baptized. If you mean by the room and p. 90place the society into which both persons were to be initiated, it is not true: For by the Sacrament of Baptisme, persons were to be baptized into the Christian Church, by Circumcision into the Jewish, as your own Conclusion saith. If you mean it of the commandment upon which both are seated, neither is that true: the commandement of Circumcision was many age… before Baptisme was instituted as a Sacrament. And for the succession into the use of Circumcision, that is yet more untrue. Your self say a few lines after. The use of Circumcision engaged men to the use of the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies. And page 29. It is true indeed, that circumcision bound them who received it, to conf…rm to that manner of administration of the Covenant, &c. And if you had not confessed it, it might have been proved out of Gal. 5.2, 3. Acts 15.10. from the custome in circumcising Proselytes, to bind them to the Lawes, not only common to all the Noachidae, but also to all the Laws of the Jews, as Selden, ubi supra, Ainsworth on Gen. 17. But I hope you will not dare to say, that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision in this use, if it do, then are we still bound to keep the Law of Moses. Another use of Circumcision, was to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family, I think you will not deny it; if you should, I might plead against you, Col. 2.17. Gal. 3.23, &c. the institution of it to be in the males only of Abrahams family, by whom the Genealogy was to be reckoned, in the member for generation, the expressions of the Covenant confirmed by it, and the consent of innumerable learned men, both of the Jewes and Christians: And I think you will not say, Baptisme succeeds into this use of Circumcision: Another use of it was to be a partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles, to distinguish and divide them, whence the one were counted unclean, as uncircumcised, the other clean, Eph. 2.11.14. but you will not say, that Baptisme succeeds into this use, sith the use of Baptisme is to the contra…y, Gal. 3.26, 27, 28. and surely these were the main uses of it. But you will say, there was use of circumcision for initiation into the Church of the Jews, and so of Baptisme. But then, though Baptisme do initiate as Circumcision, yet not into the same Church: For Circumcision did not initiate into any Church, but into the Church of the Jews, or rather into the family of Abraham; but so doth not Baptisme. If it be said, that the one confirms the Covenant, and so doth the other; still I answer, that Baptisme doth not confirm the same Covenant in every part that circumcision did: For the Covenant was a mixt Covenant, a great part p. 91whereof Baptisme doth not confirm. This is all that can be said, that they agree in that, as circumcision did confirm the spirituall part of the Covenant, to wit, righteousnesse by faith, Rom. 4.11. and signified holinesse of heart; so doth also Baptisme, the like whereof did the Cloud, Sea, Manna, the water out of the Rock, 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. the Deluge or Ark, 1 Pet. 3.21. the sprinkling of the blood of the Sacrifices; and the same are confirmed by the Lords Supper; and why then should we not say, that Baptisme succeeds the flood, sprinkling of blood, as well as Circumcision; and that the Lords Supper succeeds Circumcision as well as Baptisme? Wherefore I conceive your Proposition so generally delivered, That the Sacrament of Baptisme succeeds into the room, place, and use of Circumcision, erroneous and very dangerous. But how ever you think, the thing is plainly delivered, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. let us examine that Text then.