Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 11
SECT. XI.
Of the agreements and differences between me and Mr. Marshall concerning the sanctification and holiness mentioned 1 Cor. 7. 14.
THe last text which M. Marshall allegeth to prove his second Conclusion in his Sermon, which in his Defence he thus expounds, That upon the parents visibly owning God and his Covena…t their children have this privilege that they should be reputed to belong to Gods Kingdome, by which he means they should be baptized, is 1 Cor. 7. 14. which I called in my Examen his principall hold, and did therefore more largely examine what he said about that Scripture, than any other. In his Defence Mr. Marshals spirit seems to have been much moved that I said so much of it, interprets it as if I thought some strength in it, chargeth me with Thrasonicall vanting &c. All which words I should not think worth the taking notice of, were it not that I am thereby misrepresented to them that know me not, as if I were some vain Glorioso, like a Fencer playing a part to shew my skill, rather than seriously contending for truth, which had been abominable prophaness to play with holy things, and madness considering the detriment which then and sithence hath hapned to me by reason of my engaging in that argument. Then he brings the matter of my discourse to three heads. First Our Agreements, Secondly, my Impertinencies, Thirdly, Our Differences. I inrend to follow Mr. Marshall foot by foot, though it be to mine and the truth's disadvantage, in that Mr. Marshall hath changed my method, and the sorting of my Arguments, which much tended to the right understanding of the Dispute: of which I complain in my Apology Sect. 13. page 59. which I presume the Reader who searcheth for truth will heed being premonished.
First, saith Master Marshall we agree, that Sanctified may have many senses, and that of those many, two onelyonly are appliable in this place, either the Matrimoniall sanctification which you insisl upon, viz. chastity in the wife and husband, or lawfull matrimony between them, and legitimation of the children, or else Instrumentall sanctification in the husband and wife, and federall holiness in the children, which I insist upon.
An. It is true, for abridging the dispute, and bringing it to an issue, I say page 72. of my Examen, there remain only two senses of the word sanctified: that is, there remain only two senses in question between us, that of Instrumentall sanctification, which was expressed thus in Mr. Marshals Sermon, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quo ad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed, the other Matrimoniall, which I did not express, as Mr. Marshall sets it down, Chastity in the wife and husband, or lawfull matrimony between them, but thus, the other of Matrimonial sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chast yoke-fellow by another without fornication: So that by Matrimoniall sanctification here I understand not so much the lawfulness of the marriage in the first contract, as in the continued use and enjoyment, and expound [The unbeliever is sanctified] by [is lawfully enjoyed by his wife as a husband, notwithstanding his unbelief] which however Mr. Marshall heeded not, it was necessary for him to observe, and would have prevented some of his objections, as I shall shew afterwards.
The second agreement he thus expresseth, that foreign may signifie by, as well as in, whereas my words were, It is agreed that foreign may be read in, to, or by, so that he leaves out [to] which he had acknowledged page 24. of his Sermon, and was by him confirmed by the texts I brought in my Exercit. page 15. Now though I mislike not the reading of [in] if it be expounded as Beza and Piscator do, respectn uxoris, in respect of his wife, yet I agree with Beza that it is not to be rendred per uxorem, by the wife, which Mr. Marshall following the vulgar Latin and our last translation, for the most part useth, which reading will alone serve for Mr. Marshals exposition of Instrumentall sanctification, and therefore should have been proved to be the onelyonly right reading: for he makes the faith of the believer the instrument or instrumentall cause of the unbelievers sanctification for bringing forth a holy seed: which would not have been expressed by [in] as Beza expounds it, or [to] which barely note an object, no causality. And therefore unless he can gain that reading [by the wife] as necessary, his sense of Instrumentall sanctification, will not agree with the phrase. For my part I conceive that the best reading is to read [to the wife] as best expressing an object. And to clear it I alleged sundry places where foreign hath that sense. Dr. Homes Animadv. page 52. 53. endeavours to elude them, but without success. Matt. 17. 12. is so plain to my purpose, that what is there foreign, is Mark 9. 13. foreign, without the preposition; 2 Pet. 1. 5. is so plain that Dr. Homes his elusion can be taken for no other than a cavil; Col. 1. 23. foreign, is so plain, that unless we wiil run into Dr. Denn's wild conceit of preaching of the Gospel in the Sun, Moon, &c. we must needs read it [to every creature] whereto I adde, that of Grot. Defens. fidei Cathol. de satisfac. c. 7. apud Pemble on Zach. 1. 9. foreign doth signify [ad] as well as [in] as Ps. 19. 5. & 91. 12Hebraeos frequentissima particularium foreign & foreign permutatio, and that of Mr. Gataker Dissertat. adv. Pfoch. c. 18. where he observes in the Greek of the old Testament, Deut. 28. v. 60. foreign, et Reg. lib. 4. ch. 5. v. 27. foreign, adhaerebit in te, pro tibi, with sundry others: Yea Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindicat. page 4. ch. 1. sect. 2. saith of this very place, by the particle [foreign] in, to or by.
To that Mr. Marshal saith of our third agreement I except not, nor to the fourth, saving that I wish when Mr. Marshal confesseth it to be an argument he had declared whether with me following Piscator in his scholie on the place, he takes it to be an argument from an absurdity which he knew the Corinthians would not grant. The 5th agreement I gainsay not, but deny the sixth, and though I grant the 7th yet deny Mr. Marshals collection from it, from the abuse of which I have cleered my self in my Apology s. 13. page 58, 59. For the 8th I take his concession, that some interpreters both ancient and modern, do interpret this text as I do: nor do I deny that it were easie for him to bring ten for one, who interpret this text as he doth, if he understand it of those who are termed Calvinists, but if he comprehend Papists and Lutherans, I conceive he would fail of performing his undertaking, of Papists Chamier Panstrat. Cath. Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. names onelyonly Salmeron, and of the Ancients, Augustin peremptorily rejects it as impertinent. Tom. 7. de peccat. merito et remis. c. 26. Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscun{que} modi sit, quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo et de peccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet.
As for the particulars wherein we differ, but the cause depends not at all upon them, to that of misciting Beza, I answered in my Apology s. 13. page 59. To the testimony of Tertullian as interpreting this text of federall holiness, I have answered in my Apology s. 16. page 85. To that of Athanasius in the Praecursor of this Review. To Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 5. I have spoken in the Postscript of my Apology, s. 9. My exception against Mr. Cooks, or Mr. Woodcocks speech, as if none afore Bellarmine had given the interpretation I give of 1 Cor. 7. 14. was not to shew my reading, as Mr. Marshall it seems conceived, but to remove the prejudice which that speech if not answered might create against the truth, I hasten to that wherein the knot of the dispute lies, whether [sanctified and holy] be meant of that santification and holiness which I call matrimoniall, or of that sanctification which Mr. Marshall calls instrumental, and the holiness which he calls federall. Mr. Marshall speaks thus. The sense which you undertake to justifie is, that it is a matrimonial sanctification, where the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c. the meaning is, their mariage is lawfull, and their children are not unclean, but holy, the meaning is, they are not bastards, but lawfully begotten.
Answ. 1. Mr. Marshall apprehended not rightly my mind, in that he sets, as according to my mind, the speech thus, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. It is true page 75. it is thus printed once, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife. But that was an error in the print, my written Copy which Mr. Marshall had by him having it otherwise, as I conceive by that first Manuscript of my Examen which I have yet by me; and though it were not put among the Errata by me, whether through mine or the Printers inadvertency, I now know not, yet the conclusion there, and the next page, and my use throughout that Section, and chiefly my determination page 14, 15. of my Exercitation, might have occasioned Mr. Marshall to have otherwise recited my expressions as usually they are, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife, or in the wife, that is in respect of his wife, if he had studied my writing exactly, and dealt candidly, which would have prevented his fifth argument.
2. When Mr. Marshall expresseth my sense of matrimoniall sanctification thus, their Mariage is lawfull, he doth not rightly express my mind. It is true page 75. I speak thus, for no other holiness follows necessarily to the children in that their parents mariage is lawfull, and they born of such parents, but legitimation. But that expression was not for an explication of what I mean by marrimoniall sanctification, but to shew the causes of legitimation. And all along where I express what I mean by matrimoniall sanctification in the Apostles words, I still mean it not of the first entrance on mariage, but the continued lawfull use of it, As page 72. I say, the other of matrimoniall sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chast yoke-fellow by the other without fornication page 74. so that the sense is, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is lawfully or chastly used as a husband without fornication in respect of his own wife, whether believer or unbeliever; and after, yet mariage continues still, they are husband and wife, and so sanctified to each others use, in respect of their chast enjoyment of each other, and it is no sin for them to accompany together, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party; and page 76. I expresly deny the doubt was whether their wedlock were unlawfull, but whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall use. And page 80. the sanctification of the unbeliever is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation. Which if heeded might have prevented Mr. Marshals inference Arg. 3. and some other of his mistakes.
My meaning is this, the unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever, and so an unholy person, yet is sanctified to the wife, that is in conjugal use is as if he were sanctified, and so lawfully enjoyed as her husband: else were your children unclean, that is, if it were not so, that the unbelieving husband and wife might lawfully accompany together, your children which you have, or shall beget, would be unclean, that is base-born, but now, that is the lawful copulation of the parents being put, the children are holy, that is lawfully begotten. Mr. Marshals sense is, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife as a believer, that is, by vertue of her faith is fitted, or made capable to beget a holy seed, else your children were unclean, that is, they should not belong to the Covenant of grace, so as to be taken to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and to be admitted to baptism: But now they are holy, even the infants upon their birth, by reason of the faith of the one party belong to the Covenant of grace, so as to be taken to be members of the visible Church of Christ, and to be admitted to baptism, Now the Reader may observe that neither Mr. Marshall, nor others that have opposed me in this point prove this sense of theirs, by shewing the use of the words [sanctified, unclean, and holy] in their sense els-where, or by shewing by the analysis of the text, and the matter of it, that the sense they give must be the sense which should have been done by them bringing this text to prove Infant-baptism by it. Whereas on my part it had been sufficient to overthrow their interpretation, without giving any interpretation of my own. Yet because I desire to have truth cleared, I shall re-examine what hath passed in the dispure about this place, and adde what I further conceive useful for the clearing of the text.