Divinity Knots Unloosed, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Of the Sacraments.
61. Doubt. HOw can Infants be capable of Baptiſm, when the Scripture no where commands it, nor tels of any that were Baptized?
Reſol. Though the Scripture lay downe neither Precept nor Preſident in expreſſe tearmes; a Doctrine that may be proved by undenyable Scripture-conſequence may not be rejected. Chriſt overthrew the opinion of the Sadduces by ScriptureaMat. 22.29, to 34., although he alleadged nothing expreſly againſt their errour, but onelyonly by way of conſequence: Howbeit the confutation was ſo cleare, that the multitude underſtood, and admired it, his enemies were put to ſilence, and a freſh party prepared themſelves to give an onſet.
62. Doubt. Yet methinkes a matter of ſo great importance, and ſo much contended for, ſhould be proved by one place at leaſt of expreſſe Scripture?
Reſol. Though the leaſt part of Goſpell-truth is worthy to be contended for, ſo it be in love and modeſty; and the delay of Baptiſme without juſt cauſe, is a ſleighting of Gods gracious tender, yet the diſpute being onelyonly concerning a circumſtance of time, we account it nothing ſo weighty as if it concerned the ſubſtance and eſſence of Baptiſme. Nevertheleſſe it cannot be denyed, but even weightier matter then Baptiſme it ſelfe are not to be found in expreſſe tearmes in the Scripture: The Myſtery concerning Trinity of Perſons, in Unity of Eſſence is no where read, Totidem verbis (as we ſay) in the Word of God, howbeit it is ſufficiently proved, 1 John 5.7. and no leſſe then blaſphemy to deny it: Neither is it ſaid in any place expreſly, that the holy Ghoſt is God, though undenyably proved, 1 Cor. 3.16. Acts 5.3, 4. Or how doth it appeare that Women did, or ought to receive the Lords Supper? Or that the Son of a Beleever, being a growne perſon, was (or ought to be) Baptized, which notwithſtanding our oppoſers hold and practice: They muſt not anſwer me, that whole Families were baptized, among whom it is probable there were ſome ſuch; for it may be eaſily replyed, It is as probable, that in ſome of the Families mentioned, there was at leaſt one Infant, or perſon in minority, which if we ſhall ſuppoſe, ſeeing the whole Family was baptized, it muſt needs be baptized alſo, which they will in no wiſe grant, though it be the more probable of the two.
63. Doubt. I ſhall ſay nothing concerning the Trinity, or of the Deity of the holy Ghoſt (your ſelfe having proved them both ſufficiently, though (I confeſſe) onelyonly by ſtrong conſequence, not in expreſſe tearmes, which I never before obſerved) but to me the Scripture is plaine enough, that Women may receive the Lords Supper, becauſe they may examine themſelves b1 Cor. 11 28., and we read of Women that have had Faith, Repentance, Knowledge, and Charity, as well as men: And as eaſie is it to prove, that a Beleevers Son (when himſelfe is a Beleever) muſt be baptized, ſeeing Faith makes capable cMark 16.16.; but I finde not the like proofe for Pedobaptiſme?
Reſol, Miſtake me not, I did not deny the things you plead for; onelyonly I ſay they cannot be found in expreſſe tearmes, but muſt be made out by conſequence, and this you ſhall finde is equally ſtrong for Pedobaptiſme as for them, which (to ſatisfie your doubt) I ſhall briefly ſhew you in theſe few Arguments.
1. Argument.
Diſciples are to be Baptized, Beleevers Children are Diſciples: Ergo, They are to be Baptized.
That Diſciples are to be Baptized, no man can doubt, that underſtands, Matth. 28.19. which Scripture is moſt naturally rendred*foreign. : Go, diſciple all Natinos, baptizing them, &c. And thoſe which deny the lawfulneſſe of Childrens baptiſme, doe not onelyonly acknowledge this, but urge it much againſt us, as ſuppoſing that Infants cannot be Diſciples; And therefore all the ſtreſſe of the argument lyeth in the proofe of the Minor, which may be done thus. Peter blaming ſuch as urged Circumciſion, and obſervance of Moſes Law, hath this paſſagedActs 15.10., Why tempt yee God, to put a yoake on the neck of the Diſciples, &c. To the underſtanding whereof you muſt note, that the falſe Teachers taught the Brethren that they muſt be Circumciſed, becauſe of the Law of Moſes commanding iteActs 15.1 (for no other Law could bind them to it) and this Law did not onelyonly require that adult perſons, but that all their Males eight days old ſhould be circumciſedfGen. 17.12.. So that theſe Patrons of Circumciſion muſt needs lay this unſupportable yoak, as well on Beleevers Children, as Beleevers themſelves, and yet they are all called Diſciples; I conclude therfore, ſeeing Chriſt commands that Diſciples muſt be baptized, and Peter includeth Beleevers Children in the number of Diſciplet, Such Children are to be baptized.
2. Argument.
If Baptiſme be come into the roome of Circumciſion, Infants may be as capable of it, as they were of Circumciſion:
But, Baptiſme is come in the room of Circumciſion:gCol. 2.12 Therefore, &c.
3. Argument. —
64. Doubt. Stay a little, before you proceed to any other Argument, I deſire you would vindicate the aſſumption of the laſt, from juſt exceptions: How can Baptiſme be come in the place of Circumciſion? When firſt, they were both on foot together a long ſeaſon: Secondly, Males onelyonly were Circumciſed, but Females are alſo baptized: Thirdly, Circumciſion muſt be adminiſtred ſtrictly on the eight day; but no ſuch rule is obſerved in baptizing Children: Fourthly, Circumciſion was to confirme Canaan, and certaine temporall bleſſings to Abraham, and his ſeed hGen. 17.8, 9, 10., for ſuch was the Covenant of God with him iGen. 17.4, &c. & 15 18, &c..
Reſol. To theſe your foure allegations I ſhall ſhape you out as many particular anſwers.
1.1 Exception removed. They might be both on foot at once, and yet one ſucceed in the place of another. Solomon was anoynted King, his Father being yet alivek1 King. 1 39, 43, 44, &c. ; in like manner was Eleazar made Prieſt, before his Fathers deathlNum. 20.26. ; yet who doubts but they were their Fathers ſucceſſours? Goſpell-Ordinances came in the roome of typicall CeremoniesmJoh. 4.22 23, 24. Heb. 10.1., though they were in being at one timenAct 16.2. So Circumciſion was in being, but even expiring, when baptiſme was inſtituted.
2.2 Exception taken away. Males onelyonly were circumciſed becauſe they onelyonly were capable, but Women were alſo included in the Covenant, for it was made to Abraham and his ſeed, whereof the Females were a very conſiderable part, and though they were not perſonally circumciſed (becauſe uncapable) they were not excluded from Circumciſion, but included in the Circumciſion of the Males. A Church or Family was accounted circumciſed, when the Males were circumciſed. The whole houſhold muſt eate the Paſchall LambeoExod. 12.3, 4., and yet no uncircumciſed perſon muſt eate thereofpVer. 48., ſurely then Women in Iſrael were not reputed uncircumciſed: But now for Baptiſme, Women are not onelyonly virtually, and conſtructively, but actually, properly, perſonally, and formally capable thereof, as well as men: In a word, we read that Lydia (a Female) was baptizedqActs 16.15. ; and that an Infant may be, it hath been (and by Gods help ſhall be ſurther) proved: and then why not a Female Infant?
3.3 Exception taken of. Whatſoever in the time of the Law was not eſtabliſhed on ſuch grounds as concerne our times alſo, but was either typicall, or grounded on ſpeciall reaſon, peculiar to thoſe times, we never judged our ſelves obliged thereby: Of which fort of precepts, that concerning the preciſe obſervation of the eight day is one.
Maſter Tombes himſelfe (if my memory faile not, for I have not his Book now at hand) doth acknowledge that the eight day typ fied the reſurrection, which confeſſion is indeed ingenious, but not all the proofe we have; for the Scriptures ſhew that the eight day was exactly limited, becauſe of the Mothers Ceremonially uncleaneneſſe the firſt ſeven dayes, which muſt be paſt ere the Child could enjoy this Ordinance whereof we ſpeakerLev. 12. Verſ. 2. compared with ver. 3.. If any man ſhall here reply, this can be no reaſon, becauſe ſhee was uncleane three and thirty dayesſVer. 4. : I anſwer, firſt, that though ſhee was uncleane ſoking, yet not with the ſame kind of uncleaneſſe, for elſe the ſpirit of God would not have divided them, but have ſayd, ſhe ſhall be uncleane forty days, nor have called them by diſtinct names, the one, ſeparation of infirmitytLev. 12.2. ; the other, blood of purifyinguIbid. v. 4.. Secondly, though it were the ſame uncleaneſſe, it did not prejudice the reaſon, becauſe the eight day was an intermiſſion betwixt the ſeven, and three and thirty dayes, as the word [then] ſhewes, And ſhee ſhall then (that is, after the eight day is over, and the Child Circumciſed) continue in the blood of her purifying, three and thirty dayes, &c wVer. 4.. To conclude, there is good reaſon that as they were to take the firſt opporrunity, wherein the Ordinance of Circumciſion could be orderly adminiſtred (which in ordinary caſes was the eight day) ſo ſhould we take the firſt fit opportunity for the Baptiſme of our Infants, and not defer it when it may be orderly adminiſtred, but the ſtrict obſervance of the eight day by ſpeciall reaſon concerned the Jews, but not us.
4.4 Exception anſwered. In the Covenant made with Abraham ſome things be peculiarly promiſed to him, and his Seed, as thoſe you recited; but ſome things common to all the faithfull with him, as that paſſage [To be a God to thee, and thy Seed after thee xGen. 17.7.] Now Circumciſion confirmed both ſorts of promiſes to his Seed after the fleſh, but onelyonly the ſpirituall mercies to Proſelytes, which were his Children onelyonly by Faith and profeſſion, not by generation: It is not to be imagined, that every Circumciſed bond-ſervant had an inheritance in Canaan beſtowed on him: Neither reaſon nor Hiſtory make for ſuch an aſſertion (much leſſe that Proſelytes, dwelling in farre Countreys, muſt have poſſeſſions in the Land which God gave onelyonly to the Sons of Jacob yGen. 28.3.) though they had right to their holy thingszExod. 12 48.. Underſtand therefore, that when we ſay Baptiſme ſucceedeth Circumciſion, we meane onelyonly ſo far as Circumciſion was a ſeale and argument of a mans being in the ſpirituall (though externall) Covenant of God, and not as it confirmed temporall rights and priviledges. Having thus vindicated the aſſumption according to your deſire, I ſhall proceed, and lay you downe more Arguments.
3. Argument.
All that belong to the externall Covenant of God ought to be Baptized:
But, The Infant-ſeed of beleeving and repenting Parents belong to the externall Covenant of God:
Therefore, They ought to be baptized.
The Propoſition is proved, Acts 2.39. where Peter urgeth the repenting Jewes to be baptized on this ground, becauſe the promiſe (that is, the externall Covenant of grace, or rather the externall part of the Covenant of grace) was to them and their Children: If this was a good reaſon then, it is ſo ſtill. And that the Infant-ſeed of beleeving and repenting Parents, belongeth to the externall Covenant of God, is as plain, 1 Cor. 7.14. To underſtand which place, conſider that there be onelyonly three ſorts or kinds of holineſſe, of which Children can be capable, which we may call (till better names be found out for them) perſonall, conjugall, and federall: The firſt cannot be here intended, for many a Beleever hath unſanctified and graceleſſe Children, which could not be, if one beleeving Parent ſhould ſo ſanctifie the other, that the Seed ſhould be internally holy. Not the ſecond, Viz. Conjugall, or Marriage holineſſe, and if the Apoſtle had onelyonly meant ſuch Children were lawfully begot in Wedlock, not adulterouſly, or in Fornication; for he makes ſuch an oppoſition between uncleaneſſe and this holineſſe as will not admit this interpretation: Elſe (ſaith he) were your Children uncleane, but now they are holy: Uncleanneſſe and holineſſe are here oppoſed; ſo that if by [holy] he meane onelyonly lawfully begotten [uncleane] muſt needs ſignifie unlawfully begotten: And then the Apoſtle ſaith thus much in effect, that when neither party beleeveth, they live and beget Children in adultery, or fornication; but this cannot be his meaning, for it is not true, Marriage being honourable, and a bed undefiled, not to Belevers onelyonly, but to all menaHeb. 13.4. It remaineth then, that they be Covenant-wiſe, or federally holy, or ſet apart to God. For the Lord having taken a beleever and his ſeed, into Covenant with himſelfebGen. 17.7 as before., though his Wife be an unbeleever, her infidelity cannot make Gods Covenant ineffectuall.
For further proofe, let us view againe that Scripture in the ſecond of Acts, Verſ. 39. The promiſe is to you, and TO YOƲR CHILDREN: This is ſpoken to Evangelicall repenting Parents, and agrees to all ſuch.
Add hereunto, that many abſurdities (and thoſe no ſmall ones) will follow, if we deny Children (becauſe ſuch) to be uncapable of the externall Covenant; as,
Abſurdity 1 Firſt, That we have loſt by the comming of Chriſt: for before he came in the fleſh, if a Gentile had joyned himſelfe to the Jewiſh Church, he had taken hold of the Covenant for himſelfe and his Seed, but now onelyonly for himſelfe; and is not a mans tenure much worſned, if he formerly held to him and his heyres for ever, and now onelyonly for terme of life: Surely the cleareneſſe of diſpenſation, and freedome from burdenſome Ceremonies appertaining to the Covenant of grace cannot make nmends for this loſſe: A man had better undergoe many inconveniences with his owne Land, then to have a morec ommodious piece for terme of life only.
Abſurdity 2 Secondly, The whole bleſſing of Abraham ſhould not then come on the Gentiles, according to Gal. 3.14. but onelyonly part of it, for his priviledges were not perſonall only, but hereditary, i.e. belonging to his Seed.
Abſurdity 3 Thirdly, Chriſt ſhould be leſſe kind to his Church now then when he was on the Earth, for then he acknowledged, that Infants were not debarred, for their infancy, from the Covenant; but ſaith, Of ſuch is the Kingdome of Heaven cMat. 19.13. Mark 10.14. Luk. 18.15: I know ſome may anſwer when Chriſt ſaith [of ſuch] he meaneth not Children, but ſuch as they are: Viz. ſuch as are harmeleſſe, humble, and meek, like them: But the reply is eaſie, that he intended to take in both; for the Originall word*foreign., which is here tranſlated [ſuch] when it is referred to a patterne, doth not exclude, but include it.
I can give you many inſtances where the word muſt needs be ſo taken: where Chriſt ſayth, Who ſo ſhall receive one SƲCH Child in my Name, receiveth medMat. 18.5 ; were it not ridiculous to ſay, Chriſts intent was to tell them, that if they received any other Child like that, in his Name, they received him; but if they received that very Child which he ſhewed them, they received him not: It is ſayd, John 4.23. That the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip the Father, in ſpirit and in truth; for the Father ſeeketh SƲCH to worſhip him. Here the word (ſuch) cannot ſignifie ſuch as are onelyonly like to them that worſhip in ſpirit and truth (for ſuch counterfeits are hypocrites, whoſe ſervice God abhors) but they that doe ſo worſhip. Compare alſo the firſt Verſe of the ſecond Chapter to the Romans with the ſecond Verſe of the ſame, and you ſhall ſee that ſuch things are the ſame things. In the ſame ſenſe this word is taken in ſundry other placeseMat 9.8 Act. 16.24 Gal. 5.23..
Thinke withall what reaſon you can give, why Chriſt ſhould be ſo angry as Mark telleth us he wasfMark 10.14. The Greek word foreign, importeth indignation, or grievous vexation of ſpirit, and ſo is uſed, Mat. 20.24 & 26.8. Mark 10.41 & 14.4 Luk. 13.14, when his Diſciples rebuked them that brought Children to him, that he ſhould pray over themgMat. 19.13. : Was this the ſole cauſe, Viz. that they were like thoſe that belong to him in conditions? Then whereſoever the like vertues are found, they that hold them forth muſt alſo be admitted, and Chriſt would have been diſpleaſed, had they been rebuked: And upon this ground (as Maſter Cotten rightly affirmeth) Chriſt might as well have ſayd, Suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me, for of ſuch (that is, ſuch meek and harmeleſſe ones as they are) is the Kingdome of Heaven. But ſurely that opinion would ſavour ſtrongly of the idle, that ſhould ſet Chriſt in a poſture of readineſſe to receive Doves or Lambs, to pray over them, and to be diſpleaſed with his Diſciples, had they rebuked ſuch as brought them, which yet he muſt have done had he been uniforme in his working according to reaſon*This is cleare to him that underſtands the axiome. A quateus ad omne valet conſequentia., and thoſe imitable vertues the ſole cauſe why he received them.
65. Doubt. There is a great deale of reaſon in that which you ſay, and I acknowledge my ſelfe much engaged to you for condiſcending to my capacity, in avoyding tearmes of Art as much as may be: But I obſerve, you made much uſe of Acts 2.39. and I doubt whether it can carry all the weight you lay on it, for there be no leſſe then three ſtrong exceptions againſt it.
Exception 1 Firſt, All to whom Peter ſpake were Jewes by Nation, to whom indeed this promiſe belonged: Keepe you to Beleevers in Abrahams line, and you may ſay to them, The promiſe is to you and to your Children: but you cannot affirme the ſame of others, for there is no ſuch promiſe.
Exception 2 Secondly, Others expound the place thus; The promiſe is to you if you repent, and to your Children, and to thoſe that are afarre off (that is Gentiles) even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call, if they repent: Or thus, whoſoever God calleth (be it your ſelves, your Children, or any of the Gentiles) to them the promiſe belongeth.
Exception 3 Thirdly, Some affirme, this is no the promiſe of Gen. 17. (as you ſeeme to take it) but of Joel 2. which the ſpeech concerneth all along this Chapter; and the ſenſe is, The promiſe (Viz. of extraordinary gifts of the ſpirit, to ſpeake to people of ſtrange languages, in their Mother tongues, as wee doe this day) is to you, and to your Children, and to as many as are afar off; even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call: to wit, to Preach to ſuch people as he hath called us.
Reſol. 1 Exception taken off.Admit they were all Jewes by Nation (although I ſee no neceſſity to grant it:) Is not the partition-wall yet broken downe?Eph. 2.12, 13, &c. Acts 10.34, 35. Gal. 5.13, 14. Rom. 2.26.27, 28, 29, & 4.9. 1 Cor. 7.19 Gal. 6.15. What then ſignifie theſe Scriptures in the Margent? If it be, what mean learned men to cumber us with ſuch diſtinctions or reſtrictions, as Beleevers in Abrahams line, and Beleevers out of his line?
2.2 Exception removed. The limitation, Even as many, &c. limits onelyonly the immediate clauſe, And to all that are afarre off: not the whole ſentence; the ſenſe being this, The promiſe is to you and to your Children (abſolutely) but not to you and your Children alone, but to ſuch alſo are afar off, if the Lord call them to repentance; nor doe I ſpeake this for mine owne advantage, but the ſcope of the place proves it; for elſe Peter might better have ſayd, the promiſe is to all that repent, then to proclaime the Covenant of God to repenters and their Seed, and when all is ſummed up, there is no promiſe to the penitents ſeed at all; were not here a faire ſlouriſh about nothing, to ſay, ſo much of mercy offered to their ſeed, and yet their ſeed receives no benefit at all? Yes (you will ſay) their ſeed may alſo repent, and then have the priviledges the Parents had: But I would faine know under what notion the Child of a Beleever becomes capable of theſe Covenant-priviledges, whether as a Beleever, or as the Child of a Beleever? If it be ſayd, as a Beleever; then it cannot be as the Son of a Beleever; for had all his kindred been Turkes, or Heathens, he might (yea ought to) be received when it appeareth that himſelfe beleeveth: If as the Child of a Beleever, why may he not be received in infancy? For he can never be more the Child of a Beleever, then he is the firſt minuite of his life.
3.3 Exception replied unto. This promiſe cannot be that of the ſecond of Joel (though I grant that is inſiſted on in this Chapter) for it runs not in the ſame tearmes: That in Joel is to the Sons and Daughters immediately; this to the Parents, and ſecundarily to the Children like, Gen. 17.7. Much leſſe will the coherence allow it. For when the poore creatures were pricked in their hearts, crying out, Men and Brethren what ſhall wee doe? Was it ſuitable to tell them, the muſt repent and be baptized all of them; and then if it ſhould pleaſe God to call them to be Preachers, they might expect the extraordinary gifts of the ſpirit inabling them to Preach to people of ſtrange languages, or if he called their Children, or any of the Gentiles to the like worke, they might expect the like aſſiſtance? Were this ſalve for a wounded conſcience, groaning under the burden of ſin? If there were no Women amongſt them (which yet is to me very doubtfull) we may nevertheleſſe ſuppoſe upon good probability: 1. that many of them (if not the moſt) were never called to be Preachers: 2. On the other ſide, experience tels us, that in ſome places (as New England for example) Miniſters that have been ſent to people of ſtrange tongues (as appeares by the bleſſing of God upon their indeavours) have not attained to their ſpeech by immediate inſpiration, but in time acquired the knowledge thereof, by induſtry and converſing among them: Nor 3. can miniſteriall abilities appeaſe an awakened conſcience, but the revelation of free pardon; and ſo muſt Peters ſpeech be expounded, Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remiſſion of ſins, and yee ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt (a gift frequently beſtowed on ordinary hearers in thoſe dayeshActs 8.15 16, 17. & 10.44, 45, 46. & 19.2. cum 6.) and his maine argument to of grace) is to you and to your Children. Thus move them to repent and be baptized, is this The promiſe (i.e. the externall Covenant I hope theſe objections have received their full anſwers: I would onelyonly add this more concerning them; though they be brought by one party, and for one cauſe they doe vehemently interfere, and fight one againſt another, inſomuch that no two of them can ſtand together: For the firſt ſuppoſeth the promiſe to be the Covenant of grace, & advanceth Jews above Gentiles in the injoyment of it, making the Priviledges of the Jews hereditary, but of the Gentiles meerly perſonall: The ſecond likewiſe ſuppoſeth it to be the Covenant of grace, but utterly quaſheth the pretended difference between Beleevers in Abrahams line, and Beleevers out of his line, which the firſt exception urged: The third denyeth it to be a Covenant of grace: So then take which you will, and it overthroweth the other two; and yet theſe multiformous creatures muſt all be drawne in one yoak (though they looke ſo many ſeverall wayes) to the prejudice of the truth; but it is impoſſible a cauſe ſhould proſper under ſo many and manifeſt contradictions.
Serpentes avibus geminantur, Horat.tigribus agni.
66. Doubt. How can an Infant be in Covenant with God, when as it doth not conſent to its owne baptiſme; and a Covenant requires the conſent of both parties?
Reſol. 1. It is a miſtake to thinke that baptiſme brings a ſoule within Covenant, whereas it is an evidence of a mans being in Covenant with God (externall I meane all along) before he was baptizediActs 2.38 39. & 8.37. cum 38. & 16.14, 15., as Circumciſion alſo waskGen. 12.1, 2, 3. cum Chap. 17.7 Joſh. 5.3. cum Jer. 31 32..
2. Gods Covenants doe not need a reſtipulation on the creatures part: He made a Covenant with Abrahams ſeed, while yet he had no childlGen. 12.15. & 17. Chapters. Acts 7.5. ; yea he did not onelyonly Covenant with Noah and his ſeed, but with every living creaturemGen. 9.9 10., and yet theſe could not reſtipulate. When men Covenant both parties muſt conſent, becauſe elſe the one knowes not the others mind, nor hath power to worke him to his purpoſe: but God performes all; he becomes their God and makes them his peoplenJer. 31.31, 32. Heb. 8.10..
67. Doubt. How can Children be lawfully baptized, ſeeing Faith is required oMark 16.16.which Infants have not?
Reſol. Things muſt be underſtood according to the capacity of the perſons ſpoken to: Paul ſaith, if any would not work neither muſt he eatep2 Theſ. 3 10.. Muſt therefore Infants, and they which are diſabled by ſickneſſe or age, either worke or periſh? In like manner, Chriſts words which you quote ſeeme to import, that he which beleeveth not muſt not be baptized; but looke at the precedent Verſe, and you ſhall ſee ſuch are pointed as, as can heare the Word Preached, which Infants cannot: Infants beleeve in their Parents, as Levi payd tythes in Abraham, and Parents bringin their Children to Chriſt, the children themſelves are ſayd to come to himqMat. 19.1…, 14. Mark 10.13, 14. Luke 18.1…, 16..
If you allow not this, conſider what dangerous Doctrine, and uncharitable judgement, you muſt needs by conſequence entertaine: Viz. that all which dye Infants are damned; for it you ſay an Infant cannot be baptized, becauſe it hath not faith; by the ſame reaſon you muſt conclude alſo, that becauſe it wanteth faith it cannot be ſaved; for the Text you alleadge, is farre more expreſſe for that, then the other: He that beleeveth not ſhall be domned.
68. Doubt. Some conceive, 1 Cor. 7.14. proveth a Child to be out of Covenant, except one of the next and immediate Parents be a Beleever? I pray you tell me your apprehenſion thereof.
Reſol, Truely I think it doth not;*Nec ſtantem a parte affirmativa cogit foreign, locus, 1 Cor 7.14. ubi Apoſtolus dicendo liberos cujuſvis parentis fidelis (majoribus omnibus ethnicis) eſſe Sanctos liberos amborum parentum immediatorum (reliquis omnibus majoribus membris) … eſſe …. … Apolloaium Ca. 2. p. 38. for although in ſuch a caſe as theirs, when the Goſpell was newly ſowne amongſt them, and all their Anceſtours had been heathens, one of the Parents muſt needs be a Beleever, or the Child be deſtitute of federall holineſſe; yet I judge far otherwiſe, concerning the ſeed of beleeving (though remote) ParentsrExo. 20.6 Gen. 17.7. Pſa. 89.29. & 103.17.18..
69. Doubt. How may the Papiſts be anſwered, which contend for Chriſts reall preſence in the Hoſt, ſeeing Chriſt ſayd expreſly, This is my body, and his words muſt needs be true?
Reſol. We confeſſe, he is preſent truely (though not corporally, but Sacramentally) in the ſame ſenſe that Paul ſaith, The Rock was Chriſt ſ1 Cor. 10.4.; that is a figure of Chriſt.
70. Doubt. If a man muſt examine himſelfe, and ſo eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup t1 Cor. 11.28., why ſhould any other examine him?
Reſol. It is not intended excluſively, as if none elſe might, but that himſelfe muſt except he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eate and drinke damnation to himſelfe uVer. 27, 29. foreign,: The word which is tranſlated [ſo] is an Adverbe of likeneſſe, and therefore it cannot be rendred, Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo (that is, without more adoe) let him eate, &c But thus, Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo (that is, in that frame of ſelfe-examination) let him eate of that bread, &c.