Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 94
SECT. XCIV. It is shewed that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16. for his sense of the fore-part of v. 14. Nor will his sense of Holy for Baptized, agree with the Apostles argument, though his sense of the forepart of the v. were granted.
THe Dr. adds, My third proof produced for my interpretation of the first part of v. 14. which to me put it out of all doubt, by comparing it with the reason subjoyned; For what knowest thou O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband; or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt thy wife?] He comes next to examine, and hath many exceptions against it, all which (without losing time in repeating and viewing them severally) will be soon dispelled by a right understanding of the force of the Apostles argument, as there I conceive it to lie, Thus v. 14. It is matter of ordinary observation, that unbelieving husbands have been brought to the faith and Baptism by the believing wife, therefore I now exhort and counsel the believer not to depart from the unbeliever, in case the unbeliever be willing to stay, v. 13. for this reason, v. 16. Because whath hath been so oft, may very probably be hoped again, and consequently upon the premimises the believer hath ground to hope, that she may in time gain the husband to the faith, and that being so fair a reward in her view, (the saving or rescuing him from infidelity to Christ) may well inforce the counsel of the Apostle, not to depart from him, as long as, without sin, she is permitted to stay. By which it appears that this v. 16. is not a bare evplanation of foreign v. 14. (on which Mr. T. his exceptions principally depend) but an application of the argument formerly proposed, but now more signally brought home to them, under the form of [foreign for what] by this meanes to re-inforce his conclusion of their not departing for the cause of infidelity: If the Reader will but observe what is thus visible, he will want no more help, to get out of the intricacies and roils, which Mr. T. hath here spread for him in this matter, which is in it self so manifest, as nothing can be added to it, if either the text or my paraphrase may be permitted to speak for it self.
Ans. The Dr. seems to be much crest-fa…n, who having said his exposition appeared most irrefragably by v. 16. wherin he said the fore-part of v. 14. was further explained. When four plain reasons were urged against this, he replies to none, but onelyonly calls them intricacies, and toils, and saith, my exceptions depend on this, that v. 16. is not a bare explanation of foreign v. 14. whereas my reasons prove it to be neither an explanation nor an application of the argument formerly proposed v. 14. but another argument, not to prove the lawfulness of the believers continuance with the believer, as v. 14. but either as a motive to bring them to what he had concluded lawfull, or to inforce what he had said v. 15. And for what the Dr. saith, that v. 16. the argument formerly proposed, v. 14. is more signally brought home to them, it is not true even according to the Drs. own paraphrase. For the Drs. paraphrase of v. 14. as if therein a frequ…ncy of the conversion of unbelievers yoke fellows by the believer, were well known as matter of ordinary observation, and so hopefull in the case of the present doubters, brings home the argument more signally then a mention o… it as possible, doubtfully expressed as a contingent that might be or not be. But I am willing the Reader should hear us both and then judge. I for my part do still conceive the Drs paraphrase of the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.11. to be far from the meaning of the text, the reason of the Apostle being by it made a Rhetorical argument to inforce the cohabitation as an advantage, which is used to make it lawfull, and urged from a contingent thing which no whit cleered the doubt, but the reason might be retorted against him, and all ascribed to the yoke fellow as a believer, when the term believer is quite omitted, and that ascribed to the believer which is stil elswhere ascribed to the spirit of God, and that expressed as done often and as of ordinary observation, which is expressed in the singular number, and made by the Apostle as doubtfull and uncertain. And if these be intricacies and toils the Dr. hath had little compassion on me and his reader, who when he might so easily, would not spend a little more time to help me out of them, though spread by himself.
The Dr. proceeds Sect. 4. His exceptions to the former part of my paraphrase being now ended, I must attend what hee hath to say against the latter part of it, that which concernes our matter in hand more neerly; The words foreign, for else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, i. e. upon that score it is that Christians children are admitted to Bap…ism, viz. because by their living in the family with the Christian parent, they probably will (and ought to) be brought up in the faith — and the Church (requiring and receiving promise from the parents) reasonably presumes they will, and so admits them to Baptism. The argument of the Apostle thus explained in my paraphrase (or if he yet will have it more plainly thus, The Church upon confidence that the believers children will be brought up in the faith, receives them to Baptism when they are infants; And upon the same grounds of hope, that your abiding with the unbelieving husband may in time convert him (as by experience it hath oft been found) I advise you not to depart from him, if he will live with you, For what knowest thou whether thou shalt save thy husband? &c.) M. T. hath made a shift not to understand, and substituted another way of arguing in my name, in stead of it, p. 331. And having done so I must leave him to combate with the shadow of his own creating, no part of his impression lighting upon that which alone I profess to bee my meaning in it, which I leave him or the Reader to see, in the particulars proposed by him, but must not now bee so impertinent, as to lose time in the persuit of them.
Answ. Sith the Dr. hath disclaimed my good words, and approbation of his ingenuity, ch. 1. sect. 1. of this his defence, I shall forbear to commend his ingenuity, but cannot choose but take notice of his shift he makes to avoid the force of my reasons, by bearing the Reader in hand that I made a shift not to understand him, that I substitute another way of arguing in his name in stead of it, that I combate with a shadow of my own creating, no part of my impression lighting upon that which alone he professeth to be his meaning in it, and therefore must not now be so impertinent as to lose time in the pursuit of the particulars proposed by me. This is a pretty art to pretend a reason why he need not answer what he cannot; like his, who when he could not make a good account, devised how he might make none at all. The Dr. saith I have substituted another way of arguing in his name in stead of that he hath set down. Now sure this intimates that this he sets down was a way of arguing, and calls hi… explications he sets down the argument of the Apostle thus explained in his paraphrase in the later way more plainly. But in neither do I find any arguing ascribed to the Apostle in the later part of his word▪ 1 Cor. 7.14. but in the former a meer d…claration upon what reason Christians children are (as the Dr. conceives the Apostle mean…) admitted to baptism; in the later, an addition of a paraphrase on the first part of 1 Cor. 7 14. with his advise according to v. 12, 13. and his paraphrase confirmed by v. 16. Nor doth the Dr. at all explain those words, Else were your children unclean, though those were the words I chiefly insisted on to shew the absurdity his framing the Apostles reasoning brought his words to, as the Reader may plainly perceive by my words in the 2d part of my Review, sect. 26. p. 330, 331. But to shew the Drs. collusion in this thing, the Reader may observe 1. that neith…r in his paraphrase in his 4th. qu §. 31. (though he make it §. 32. the importance of the Apostles words, and force of his arguing) nor here, doth the Dr. set down the true force of the particle foreign else, which in his Letter, qu. 4. §. 33. (to which my answer was made, p 330, 331, 332. with which the Dr. here cavils) he terms an argumentative stile. For the expressions [upon this score, on this one consideration, upon this ground] are not exclusive terms, as foreign else is, which implies not onelyonly that the thing is so upon that one consideration, but also that without it it should be otherwise; nor doth the Dr. seem to put them as answering to foreign else were, but to foreign but now. 2. That (as I said before) the Dr▪ doth in neither of these paraphrases set down any thing as answering to [else were your children unclean] nor in his Letter, qu 4 §. 3… ▪ except these words are put to answer them [yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism,] which me thinks hee should not do, sith [your children] is in all his paraphrases [Christians children, believers children] and therefore I am loth to think him so much overseen▪ as that he should put [the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism] for [your children were unclean,] 3. If he should, he should in that paraphrase much pervert the Apostles meaning, by putting that which answers to [else were your children unclean] contrary to the Apostles order, after that which answers to [but now are they holy;] of which disorder, tending to pervert the Apostles meaning, his plainer later paraphrase here is guilty, putting first that which hee conceives answerable to [but now are they holy,] and then that which answers to [the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,] and then that which answers to [v. 13. let her not leave him,] and then the 16th. v. which sure is such a disorder as is very faulty, so deforming the Apostles argument, as that its like the leaving out of an arm or eye, the placing of the hand where the eye should be in the painting of a man, whereby he is made a monster. 4. Whereas the Dr. Defence of Baptism, p. 66. denies that he made the future hopes any part of the sense of [hath been sanctified,] in all these paraphrases he sets down nothing but the future hopes, which are no part of the sense by his own confession, but as he imagines, the rational importance, the score, ground, or consideration of admitting children to Baptism. And not onelyonly so, but adds more then he makes the rational importance of the term [hath been sanctified] in his paraphrase, as that by their living in the family with Christian parents, they probably will (and ought) to be brought up in the faith, and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents, reasonably presumes they will. None of which he doth so much as pretend to be the rational importance of [hath been sanctified,] but adds them of his own; and with like fancying might have added, the Church doth reasonably presume they will be Teachers, Officers in the Church, Martyrs, and what else they could wish them to be I refer it to any sober ingenious Scholler to judge, whether such kind of paraphrasing, especially when an argument is drawn from it, as the chief, if not onelyonly pi…lar of the cause, be tollerable.
On the other side, that the Dr. did make the Apostles arguing otherwise, when he refuted the answer to his argument hence, in his Letter, qu. 4. §. 82. appears by his words there, p. 257. (which I cited Review par. 2. pag. 322. and were those whence I gathered the Drs. framing the Apostles argument) when he said, The invalidity of this answer will be discerned First by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place, for the co…habiting of the believing wife with the unbelieving husband, &c. because the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified by the believing wife, or else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: that must needs be this, unless there were some hope that the co-habiting of a believer, should be a means to bring an unbeliever to the faith, 'twould certainly follow, that their children were unclean; now putting to it that which he in his paraphrases §. 31. of his 4th. qu. in his Letter, where he expresseth [hath been sanctified] thus, The unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer, and [unclean] by [not admitted to Baptism,] and [holy] by [admitted to Baptism,] and [your children by [the young children of Christians whereof was an unbeliever;] and I appeale to any that shall compare my words in the 2d. part of this Review, sect. 26. p. 331. where I make this the Apostles arguing as the Dr. expounds it, [If some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been converted by the faith, diligence, and conversation of the believing party that then was, then the children of you who are believers, but begotten or brought forth by one that yet is an unbeliever, had not been admitted to Christian Baptism in infancy: but now, that is, upon this score, that some former unbelieving yoke-fellows have been brought to the faith of Christ by the faith, conversation, and diligence of the believer, they have been admitted to Baptism,] with the Drs. premised arguings and paraphrase in his Letter, qu. 4. §. 31, 82. and here, whether I have not rightly set down the Apostles argument as the Dr. expounds him, and the Dr. hath not changed here his frame of the Apostles argument to hide the deformity of it, and whether there be any truth in it that I have not understood his paraphrase, that I have substituted another way of arguing in his name in stead of it, or have combated with the shadow of my own creating; and whether these propositions [the children of a believing yoke fellow who is joyned to an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian Baptism, if some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been brought to the faith. The children of a believer by an unbelieving yoke fellow have been admitted to Christian Baptism, by reason that it hath been usual that other believers have brought the unbeliever to the faith] are not included in the Apostles argument according to the tenour of his reasoning conceived by the Dr. and whether there be any shew of connexion in the consequence of the Apostle as the Dr. expounds it, and whether he hath not shifted in stead of answering, and imputed fiction to me that he might hide his own collusion.