consâ—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 in 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 refâ—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 religiouâ— 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 bâ— 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 sanctâ—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 buâ— a shift for why may not an unbeliever he said as wâ—ll to possesse his vessâ—ll in holines is to be sanctified Bâ—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 undâ—filed And though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holinesse be not found among the heathen writers as being so farre as I can finde a word used only among Ecclesiasticall writers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for câ—stâ—moniam servo I preserve chastity as Stephanus in his Thesaurus â—bserves out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacâ—hus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure fâ—om the company of man And the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste chastity comming from the same root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for holinesse and chastity very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek writers So that what you say that holy cannot be taken for legitimate but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church Iâ— 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 aâ—e holy Else had your children been bastards but now they are legiâ—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-Table-duty is lawfull though not sanctified to Pagans as well as to Christians and the legitimaâ—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 mâ—rriage then there is no adultery among heathâ—ns and so the seventh Commandement is altogether vain in the words of it as to them This 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 onely 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 peniâ—ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli Haec enim incerta est nôrunt enim omnes docet experientia neque omnes viros lucrifieri quod etiam innuit Apostolus neque omnes liberos obsecundarâ— 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
dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
that God commanded the one but no where the other and your self say pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ is that which is the only direction we are to follow But you adde a second answer which I let passe because it is but a declaration of your own conceits how you conceive a childe may seal the covenant in his infancy telling us that their name is put into the Deed and that a child may seal fiâ—st in infancy and then after agnize it and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such and to accept such a seal as they can give without any proof but only spinning out the simile of a seal as if Gods wayes were like mans wayes or a simile did gâ—â—deare in omnibus a similitude were even in all things only where you say that in the mean time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant and surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety this speech is further to be examined 'T is true Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament Heb. 7.12 he is the surety of all the covenanters he doth strike hands and becomes a surety of the whole covenant and of every condition in it take it in the largest sense and this of all both on Gods part and ours as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise intituled Christ set forth Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose Mr. Rutherfurd The triall and triumph of Faith serm 7. But are any other among men covenanters but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant Heb. 13.20 It is a very inconsiderate boldnesse in you to make every baptized person or at least every baptized Infant of a Believer a covenanter for whom Christ is a surety and one to whom God seals when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better you will easily espie your error in these dictates and therefore I passe on to the next objection BVt what benefit comes to children by such kinde of sealing as this is it seems then say they by your own confession that this is but a conditionall sealing on Gods part viz. that they own it and ratifie it when they come to age and if they then refuse to stand to it all is then nullified were it noâ— therefore better to deferre iâ— to their yeers of discretion to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act yea or no. In what sense baptizâ—ng may be called sealing I have above shewed Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this to say that God seals to every one that is baptized It is true that Baptisme is in its nature a seal of the righteousnesse of faith 1 Pet. 3.21 but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptized but only to true believers For what is Gods sealing but the confirming of his promise But God promiseth righteousnesse only to Believers therefore he seals only to Believers As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant it is but a notion the Scripture makes not Gods promise in the covenant of Grace conditionall in that sense For Gods promise is for those he enters into covenant with That he will put his Law in their hearts and in their mindes will write them Heb. 10.16 Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy chap. 9. sect 6. and the Arminians that do so speak of Gods covenant of Grace as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnize or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him as you speak I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians whether these speeches do not symbolize with their language And therefore this that you make an objection I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera and then disputing about it But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer The question is What benefit to Infants by such a sealing you answer thus This objection lay as strongly against Gods wisedome in requiring the Jews Infants even in their infancy thus to seal and therefore argues no great wisdome or modesty in man who would thus reason with God about his administrations It is true God appointed the male children of Abrahams family to be circumcised and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law and it were a sinfull presumption to reason with God about it and in like manner if God had appointed Infants to be baptized it would silence all arguings about it though we knew not the reason but how it is to be understood that God required the Jews even in their infancy to seal I do not well understand our sealing to God is believing Joh. 3.33 I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy nor of our Infants nor was Circumcision it self the Infants duty required by God of the Infant though it were its priviledge it was the parents duty Exod. 4.24 You say secondly God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him then their present gain it 's â— homage worship and honour to himself and it behoves us even in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse when Christ was baptized and circumcised he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection as children through their imperfection being as much above them as children are below them It is true Baptisme is a worship of God but Paedobaptisme for ought yet appears is but a will-worship Christs Baptisme it is true was of a transcendent nature as is said before that children are unfit for the Ordinance is not to be imputed to their imperfection but to the defect of Gods appointment if God did appoint it there would be no doubt of their fitnesse But you adde further 3. I answer The benefit and fruit of it at the present is very much both to the parents and to the children to the parents first whilest God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church to his Kingdome and Family and to be under his wing and grace whilest all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince and in the kingdome of darknesse and consequently whilest others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare untill they be called out of that condition these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their infancy nor if they live
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 you 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 compâ—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 You 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 iâ— iâ— 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 â—hus expresse 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 Baâ—tisme since the time of his incarnation Thâ— 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 distinguishing signes betwixt Gods people and the Devils people This must be also warily understood for though it be true they are both dâ—stinguishing signes yet not so but that they may be Gods people who were not circumcised nor are baptized God had