The grounds and ends of the baptism of the children of the faithful. Opened…The grounds and ends of the baptisme of the children of the faithfull. Opened…

But to come to your argument, many things are unsound in it. 1. When you say, that nothing is more clear then this, That children begotten in such uncleanness, are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy, either by Law or Gospel.

But to come to your argument, many things are unsound in it. 1. When you say, that nothing is more cleare then this, That children begotten in such uncleannesse, are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy, either by Law or Gospel.

It is too vast an Hyperbole, there be many clear truths generally received of all that fear God: as the Trinity of Persons, the unity of the Godhead, Christ his two Natures and three Offices, and an hundred such like, which are indeed clear to all that fear God. But this (which you say is most clear to all) that children begotten in uncleanness are debarred the Covenant, is denied by Tremelius and Junius, and others moe, and doubted by many. There be many that conceive Pharez and Zerah were in the holy Covenant, though begotten in Incest; and Davids child though begotten in adultery. And what would you say of all the children, which the Patriarchs had by Concubines? They were not borne in lawful marriage. If therefore they were begotten in uncleanness, were they excluded from the Covenant, and no way holy? What say you of Jephthah begotten of a strange woman, and therefore in uncleanness? Do you think God did not approve him to be in his Covenant, seeing he called him forth to be a Ruler of his people? If you say Jephthah was then faithful when God called him forth to office: What then? yet he was begotten in uncleanness. And then your assertion was too large, without any limitation to say, That children begotten in uncleanness are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy, either by law or Gospel, and that nothing is more clear then this.

It is too vast an Hyperbole, there be many cleare truths generally received of all that feare God: as the Trinity of Persons, the unity of the Godhead, Christ his two Natures and three Offices, and an hundred such like, which are indeed cleare to all that fear God. But this (which you say is most cleare to all) that children begotten in uncleannesse are debarred the Covenant, is denyed by Tremelius and Junius, and others moe, and doubted by many. There be many that conceive Pharez and Zerah were in the holy Covenant, though begotten in Incest; and Davids child though begotten in adultery. And what would you say of all the children, which the Patriarchs had by Concubines? They were not borne in lawfull marriage. If therefore they were begotten in uncleannesse, were they excluded from the Covenant, and no way holy? What say you of Jepthah begotten of a strange woman, and therefore in uncleannesse? Doe you thinke God did not approve him to be in his Covenant, seeing he called him forth to be a Ruler of his people? If you say Iepthah was then faithfull when God called him forth to office: What then? yet he was begotten in uncleannesse. And then your assertion was too large, without any limitation to say, That children begotten in uncleannesse are not in Gods holy Covenant, nor any way holy, either by law or Gospel, and that nothing is more clear then this.