A47591:706
Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness, or, The Englishman's love to the ancient…Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness, or, The Englishman's love to the antient…
Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness, or, The Englishman's love to the ancient Britons [sic] being an answer to a book, intituled [sic] Children's baptism from Heaven, published in the Welsh tongue by Mr. James Owen / by Benjamin Keach.Light broke forth in Wales, expelling darkness, or, The Englishman's love to the antient Britains [sic] being an answer to a book, iutituled [sic] Children's baptism from Heaven, published in the Welsh tongue by Mr. James Owen / by Benjamin Keach.
London: printed by William Marshall, 1696
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
but [else] were your Children unclean, is brought in a an Argument to prove that which he saith last, as the Particle [Greek or Hebrew] shows; for the terms [Greek or Hebrew] elsewhere are Argumentative as much as Quoniam, because th•n used. So 1 Cor. 15. 14. 29. Rom. 11. 16. to prove that which went before; and here the Argument is ab absurdo, from an Absurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted; and the Speech must needs be Elliptic, and somewhat is to be repeated to make the Speech full; as when 'tis said, Rom. 11. 6. [Greek or Hebrew], to make up the sense, you must add, [Greek or Hebrew], because of Work; and so here [Greek or Hebrew]; for if the unbelieving Husband hath not been sanctified to his Wife, your Children, &c. So that this Argument of the Apostle is entire, viz. If the unbelieving Husband were not sanctified by the Wife, then were your Children unclean; but they are not unclean; Ergo, the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wise. Now the Major of the Syllogism is a Contradiction, the Sequel of it were not true if this Proposition were not true: All the Children of those, whereof the one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean. Now if the Sanctification be here meant of a Matrimonial Sanctification, as I have proved it must, and the Uncleanness be meant of Federal Uncleanness, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of saving Grace, or Church-Privileges, the Proposition were most false, since the Children of Parents, whereof one was not Matrimonially sanctified to the other, but came together unchastly, as Pharez and Sarah, Judah and Tamar, Jephthah of Gilead, and many others were within the Covenant of saving Grace and Church-Privileges: Therefore to make the Proposition true (without which, the Apostle speaks that which is most false) it must be understood of Uncleanness by Bastardy; for it's true of no other Uncleanness; that all Children of those ⟨p. 119⟩Parents, whereof the one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean, but now are they holy: The Particle [Greek or Hebrew] but now, is not an Adverb of Time here, as Beza rightly speaks, but [Greek or Hebrew] elsewhere: