An Antidote Against the Venom Regarding Richard Baxter, Section 7
SECT. 7. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. alleaged to prove our Infants holy as ſeparated to God.
THe other Text that remaines hath more ſhew for his purpoſe then all the reſt, Mr. Baxter ſaith; Anabaptiſts affirme their own Children not to be holy as ſeparated to God; when God ſaith the contrary 1 Cor. 7. 14 I Anſwer, what others whom he calls Anabaptiſts affirme in this thing, I am not ingaged to inquire: I beleeve if Mr. Baxter were required to ſet down who thoſe Anabaptiſts are, and where they affirme it, he would be hard put to it to free himſelfe from overlaſhing. But I am aſſured Mr. Baxter wrote this paſſage in haſt, and inconſideratly not well weighing what he ſaid, and that however he name Anabaptiſts in the plurall, yet his only inſtance would be my ſelfe affirming in the diſputation after mentioned. But the thing I affirmed in the diſputation was not ſo rawly expreſſed as Mr. Baxter doth, I ſaid this, that every child of a believer is not, becauſe a believers child holy as ſeparated to God, nor doth holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſignifie as much as ſeparated to God. To conceive of which it is to be noted that a perſon may be ſaid to be ſeparated to God, either in Gods purpoſe by his election, or in promiſe by his Covenant, or in his preſent condition either by Gods calling to the knowledge of Chriſt, or ſpeciall employment for God, or by his owne profeſſion, or by vow of parents, or by ſome ſpeciall gift or priviledge or if there be any other way whereby a perſon may be ſaid to be ſeparated to God.
I never affirmed that none of theſe wayes my children, or other believers children are holy as ſeparated to God: I only ſaid that every child of a believer is not becauſe a believers child holy as ſeparated to God.
If Mr. Baxter had told me in what manner he meant believers children to be holy as ſeparated to God, I ſhould have told him in the diſputation more fully what I affirme or deny in this thing. But all that were Auditors of the diſpute might, and many did take notice how Mr. Baxter checked me, when I did but deſire him to explaine the terme of viſible Church member, and to ſhew by what note he meant ſome Infants were viſible Church-members, ſaying it was to catechize him, and when I told him it was neceſſary the people ſhould be ſatisfied, he told me, his comming was to diſpute with mee, not to ſatisfie them. and all along the diſpute how magiſterially, ſcornfully, and unbrotherly he carried himſelfe, not as one that minded clearing of truth, but to diminiſh my eſteem, and to gain an opinion to himſelf as having the better I think the Auditors will teſtiſie; and for this reaſon I obtained not from him to ſhew in what manner, and by what means he aſſerted every believers infant to be holy as ſeparated to God, ſo that in fine the diſpute was only about the meaning of the terme [holy] 1 Cor. 7. 14. whether it ſignifie a ſtate of ſeparation to God as Mr. Baxter conceived, or legitimation as I conceived. In which buſineſſe though I ſhould be miſtaken in the meaning which I give, yet it doth not follow Mr. Baxter is in the right: poſſibly both may be miſtaken, and then however it ſerves not Mr. Baxters purpoſe, which is as much as J need demonſtrate, yet becauſe J deſire truth may be diſcovered, J ſhall by anſwering what Mr. Baxter brought either for his owne ſenſe or againſt mine, ſhew how little cauſe of triumph there was in any thing he brought at the diſputation about this Text.
Jf Mr. Baxter ſay J do not truely ſet downe his reaſons or meaning, the fault is in himſelfe, who though often requeſted would never communicate to me his arguments in writing, but left me to gather what J could from mine own memory and others notes.
That which Mr. Baxter ſaid of the meaning of this Text was to this effect. Holineſſe 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſignifies a ſtate of ſeparation to God: for ſo the word is conſtantly taken neare 600. times, and no where for legitimate. And the Apoſtles meaning is, the unbelieving wife is ſanctified to the husband, that is to his uſe, paſſively, though not actively, remotely, though not immediatly, as it is ſaid 1 Tim. 4. 5. every creature is ſanctified by the word of God and prayer, and Tit. 1. 15. to the pure all things are pure, elſe were your children uncleane, that is were it not the unbelieving wife were ſanctified thus to the beleevers uſe, your children, the infant children of you believers; having unbelieving wives were unclean, that is not ſeparated to God, but now, that is this being determined that the unbelieving wife is thus ſanctified to the believing Husbands uſe your children, that is the children of you believing Corinthians, who have unbelieving wives are holy, that is are ſeparated to God. The ſame is the ſenſe mutat is mutandis of that which is ſaid concerning the believing wife and unbelieving Husband.
To which J ſay: Holines it is true notes a ſtate of ſeparation to God: and yet it is apparent that 1 Theſ. 4. 3. 4. 7. it ſignifies barely chaſtity of the body without fornication, to which ſenſe the uſe of [holy] for [legitimate] is neare. And when holy notes a ſtate of ſeparation to God, that ſeparation is many wayes, as by election, Covenant, calling vowing, offering, anointing, prayer, Ordinance, apparition &c. and to many purpoſes or uſes as to glorifie God, do ſervice at the Temple, execute judgement &c. If Mr. Baxter would diſtinctly tell me, what way, and to what uſe he would have the children of believers holy as ſeparated to God in the Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. J conceive he would not find one of all his 600. places, in which it is taken juſt in his ſenſe, ſo as that it may be verified of the infants he meanes. Jt is true God ſaith, the Corinthians children were holy, but he doth not ſay they were holy as ſeparated to God as Mr. Baxter would have it. Jn what ſenſe it is there taken, J conceive can be gathered no way but by analyſing the Apoſtles words and finding out of what holineſſe his ſpeech can be true, which J have already in my Examen of Mr. Marſhalls ſermon and my Apology and poſt ſcript proved to be only legitimation and may yet more fully prove in my review of the diſpute about infant-baptiſme if ever it be publiſhed, againſt all that Mr. Marſhall, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Church or any other I have met with reply to my examen: Nor is it unuſuall with interpreters to take a word in a ſenſe in which it is uſed no where elſe, when the matter' ſcope, and other circumſtances of the Text lead to that ſenſe as in that Epiſtle, 1 Cor. 11. 10. foreign which every where elſe ſignifies power or authority there confeſſedly ſignifies a veile, and the phraſe of due benevolence is uſed 1 Cor. 7. 3. in a ſenſe in which it is uſed no where elſe, and the like may be ſaid of the word [forme] Phil. 1. 6, of the word [Church] Math. 18. 17. and many more. As for Mr. Baxters expoſition I conceive it not right. 1 Becauſe if the ſanctification be underſtood as Mr. Baxter would have it in that ſenſe the unbeliever is ſaid to be ſanctified only to the true real believer before God, who by prayer doth ſanctifie the other party to his or her uſe, for of ſuch only it is true, to them every thing is ſanctified by Prayer, ſith they only can pray, and to them only all things are pure, not to them, who though they profeſſe they know God, yet in works deny him Tit 1. 16. This then is Mr. Baxters ſenſe, For the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified to the uſe of a believing wife, who is truly and really a believer before God, and not only by profeſſion before men, unto whom by vertue of her true faith and prayer her Husband is ſanctified to her uſe and pure to her. But if this were the ſenſe then the reaſon of the Apoſtle had reached only to the reſolution of ſuch to live with their unbelieving yoke-fellowes the reſt were not to continue with them, becauſe they were not ſanctified to them, whereas the doubt was concerning any viſible believer or brother, and accordingly the Apoſtles reſolution. Beſides ſuppoſing any true reall believers doubted of the truth of their owne faith, they would be deterred by the Apoſtles reaſon ſo underſtood from living with their unbelieving yok-fellowes as being not ſanctified to them. Againe the Apoſtle had reſolved them of the lawfullneſſe of their continuing together by a reaſon taken from a thing only known to God, and their own conſcience, whereas his intent was to reſolve all concerning the lawfullneſſe of living together, with their yoke-fellowes in diſparity of Religion by a reaſon taken from a thing obvious to them all. 2. Mr. Baxters ſenſe ſuppoſeth that the cauſe of the ſanctification of the unbeliever is the faith of the believer, but if ſo then doubtleſſe the Apoſtles would have expreſſed it thus [to or in the believing wife or husband] whereas it is only ſaid [in or to the husbnnd or wife] without adding the terme [believing] which manifeſtly ſhews the Apoſtle placed not the Emphaſis in it. For who will leave out the word in which the Emphaſis is put and not rather expreſſe it remarkably? 3. If the ſenſe be as Mr. Baxttr would have it, then this propoſition is true▪ as being included in the Apoſtles reaſoning: The Children whereof one of the Parents is not a reall true believer before God are none of them holy as ſeparated to God. But it is falſe, take the ſeparation to God what way and to what uſe he will, the child of profeſſed unbelievers, much more the child of profeſſed believers, though not really ſuch before God may be, and perhaps is ſeparated to God. Now that theſe Propoſitions [All the Children whereof one parent is not ſanctified to the other are uncleane, none of the children whereof one of the Parents is not ſanctified to the other are cleane or holy] are included in the Apoſtles conſequence is confeſſed by Chamier, Mr. Blake and others as I ſhew in my Examen, Poſtſcript and other writings, nor do I know any that deny it, and if they ſhould it might eaſily be evinced to any that is acquainted with the rules of reaſoniug, and therefore according to Mr. Baxters explication, the Apoſtle muſt aſſert [that all the Children whereof one of the Parents is not ſanctified to the others uſe, being a true reall believer before God are unclean, none holy as ſeparated to God,] which being manifalſe Mr. Baxters expoſition is apparently erroneous.
Laſtly if his ſenſe were allowed him, then the baptizing any Infant but ſuch whereof one of the next parents is a reall believer before God would be unlawfull, for ſuch only are holy in his ſenſe, and the reſt uncleane: But it being knowne only to God that one of the Parents is a true reall believer before God, it will follow no Miniſters ought to baptize any infant at all without revelation from God, that one of the Parents is a true real believer, otherwiſe we ſhall baptize the uncleane, or unholy who have not a right to be baptized. To tel, us as Mr. Baxter did in private conference with mee, that by a judgement of Charity, a profeſſed believer is to be taken to be a reall believer, I anſwer be it granted, yet that is not ſufficient to juſtifie the baptizing the child of ſuch a one according to Mr. Baxters expoſition, ſith as he expounds the Apoſtle it is requiſite that the parent be a true believer before God, or elſe the child is uncleane, that is in his ſenſe unbaptizable.
Beſides the judgement of Charity is not that by which perſons are to proceede in Baptizing, but the certaine judgement of Verity ariſing from Miniſteriall Skill and Prudence, to know what is the true Profeſſion, and from ſenſe, that the Perſon to be Baptized maketh ſuch Profeſſion. Mr. Baxter himſelf in his Appendix to his Aphoriſmes Pag. 58. dare not you to diſpence Gods Seales upon your conjectures of the probability or improbability of Mens ſincerity.
Theſe things being true, though I ſhould be miſtaken in my ſenſe, yet Mr. Baxters arguments were anſwered: yet ex abundanti I ſhall anſwer Mr. Baxters Exceptions againſt my interpretation, which according to my memory, and the Notes which I could procure of the Diſputation between us were theſe. The ſenſe is not right which thus interpreteth the Apostles Speech. The Ʋnbelieving Wife is ſanctified to the Husband, that is, in reſpect of lawfull uſe of Marriage is as if he were Sanctified; elſe were your Children uncleane, that is baſtards, but now they are holy, that is legitimate. For 1. The word Sanctified ſignifies ſomewhat more then lawfully uſed. Pagans actions may be ſaid to be lawfull, not Sanctified. 2. It is no good conſequence, your Marriage continues lawfull in the uſe in oppoſition to Fornication; therefore you may dwell together lawfully in oppoſition to Piety. 3. The argument is taken a notiori: but it could not be more known to them that their Children were legitimate, then that their Marriage was lawfull. 4. If it were better known that their Children were legitimate then that their Marriage were lawfull, becauſe of the change of Religion, then they ſhould doubt of their Childrens legitimation, who were borne ſince their converſion, and not of thoſe that were borne before, which were an irrationall Fancy.
To this I anſwer. 1. It is not ſaid the Unbelievers action is ſanctified, but the Unbeliever, and Unbelieveing Medes are ſaid to be Gods Sanctified ones, Iſai. 14 3. But be the word taken ſo as not to be applied to a Pagan in its proper acception, yet the ſence I give alters not the uſuall ſenſe, onelyonly it ſuppoſeth the meaning of the word to be taken with ſome diminution by a Catachreſis, or acytology, that is abuſe or impropriety of ſpeech, which is a very frequent thing, as 1 Cor. 10. 2. were Baptized, that is, quaſi baptizati ſunt (as Grotius rightly notes on that place) they were as if they had been baptized: the Cloud and Sea were to them as baptiſme to us. And ſo here the unbelieving Husband hath been Sanctified: that is, to his Wife in reſpect of the uſe of him, as if he had been Sanctified: which is a plaine and eaſie Expoſition. 2. The Corinthians doubted of the lawfulneſſe of living with the Unbelieving yokefellow, by reaſon of the unholineſs of the Unbeliever, which they queſtioned whether it did not neceſſitate a divorce or departure, though they doubted not of their Childrens legitimation, either borne afore or after their converſion, they yet living with the Unbeliever. The Apoſtles anſwer I conceive to be thus. You may lawfully continue together notwithſtanding the unbelief of the yokefellow? for he being a Husband though an Unbeliever is, as if he were Sanctified in reſpect of Marriage uſe, elſe were your Children you have borne in this eſtate uncleane, that is illegitimate which you do not conceive. Though the occaſion of the doubt were the Impiety of the one party, yet the doubt was onelyonly whether divorce were neceſſary; which is rightly anſwered by telling them they might lawfully continue in Marriage uſe. As in like caſe if a Papiſt doubt whether ſhe muſt not be divorced from her Lutheran Husband lately converted to it, the anſwer is right by telling her no, for the Marriage relation continues though her Husband be an Heretique; elſe ſhould her Children borne ſince he was made a Lutheran be illegitimate, of which ſhe doubts not. 3. It might be more known to them that their Children were legitimate, then that living with the Unbeliever continued lawfull, becauſe there was not ſuch occaſion of doubt concerning the Children, as of the Profeſſed Unbeliever, and for ſome other reaſons, perhaps through meere incogitancy of the connexion, between the unlawfulneſſe of their living together and the illegitimation of their Children, as it happened to them, 1 Cor. 15. 12. and is incident to men, and women as rationall as they. 4. According to the interpretation I give, there is no intimation of doubt concerning the Childrens legitimacy, either borne before or after converſion; nor needs there be to make good the Expoſition I give. As for [elſe were your Children unclean] the conſequence of the Apoſtle might be good in my ſenſe if it be meant either of the Children borne before, or after converſion of the one party; it is true of either, that if the Unbelieving husband were not as if he had been ſanctified to his Wife, in reſpect of lawfull conjugall uſe, their Children were illegitimate, but I think upon mature conſideration, it is the moſt cleer Expoſition to underſtand it of thoſe borne ſince the converſion of one Party. Upon this Anſwer to Mr. Baxter, I preſume the Reader will perceive my Expoſition no irrationall fancy, which is the interpretation of Ambroſe, Hierome, Anſelme, Aquinas, Melanchthon, Camerarius, Oſiander, Gagnaeus, Muſculus, Suarez, Mariana, and many others, who have been conceived men able to diſcerne between reaſon and irrationall fancies as actuely as Mr. Baxter, though I conceive of his abilities as excellent. However ſtill the Chriſtian that would not delude his conſcience, me thinks ſhould feare to goe againſt the plaine Inſtitution of Chriſt, and Practiſe of the Apoſtles, and firſt Ages of the Church; in which Infant-baptiſme was neither appointed nor Practiſed, upon ſuch uncertaine Expoſitions and Conſequences, as Mr. Baxter hath brought, and I may now freely ſay however they ſeemed ſomewhat at the firſt hearing, yet now upon exact conſideration, for the conſequences from his three firſt Scriptures here brought frivolous, and I doubt urged more like a Sophiſter then a lover of truth. The reſt of Mr. Baxters Paſſage hath with it a manifeſt tincture of reviling, little of reaſon: yet becauſe ſuch ſpeeches too eaſily take with People, who are of all others moſt prejudiced againſt thoſe they call Anabaptiſts, and who I thinke are as unequally dealt with as any men, I will make an anſwer to it.