Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 19
SECT. XIX.
My objections against instrumental sanctification, that it fits not the case of persons disabled for procreation, that it makes the argument of the Apostle to be from a future contingent, that the act of producing a holy seed is not from any special designation of God, are vindicated from Mr. Marshals answers.
MR. Marshall speaks thus. But against this you except many things. First this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by age could not be sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidental inabiliry for generation, they might still depart each from other notwithstanding this reason. I answer, it follows not, this is a laying down of their right which they may claim when they are capable of it; this is their privilege, which remains firm though it should never come into act, as if a freeman of a City should have right to have all his children born freemen, that is to be numbered among his privileges, though he should never have a child; this reaches to men and women maried and unmaried, yea even to children yet unborn: besides, the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled, but sanctified.
Answ. This exception or reason of mine was meeely against the expounding of this phrase the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband, thus, the unbelieving wife is sanctified instrumentally, that is as Mr. Marshall expressed it quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth an holy seed. Now I truly said they could not be said to be sanctified for the bringing forth a holy seed, who are disabled for bringing forth any seed at all, and so it could not have resolved the doubt of such; whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband and wife, the one an unbeliever, the other a believer. Now in answer hereto Mr. Marshall saies, this sanctification is a laying down of their right, or privilege, which remains firm though it should never come into act. I reply, the instrumentall sanctification of Mr. Marshall was thus exprest in his Sermon page 19. the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth an holy seed, and in his defence page 162. the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed. Now I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether a person may be said to be instrumentally sanctified for such an effect which he neither doth nor can produce? whether a woman may be said to be sanctified quoad hoc, so farrè as to bring forth a holy seed by vertue of the faith of her husband, who is by age or accidental impotency utterly disabled naturally from bearing any children, and hath no supernaturall power inabling her thereto? whether she may be capable to bring forth a holy seed who is not capable to bring forth any at all? Bringing forth a holy seed cannot be without bringing forth a seed, and therefore the woman uncapable to bring forth a seed is uncapable to bring forth a holy seed. Yea, Mr. Marshals own words [when they are capable of it] do impliedly acknowledge that such persons are not then capable of the right of being sanctified instrumentally for bringing forth a holy seed. I deny not but there may be a privilege which never comes into an act, but I utterly deny that this speech by which Mr. Marshall paraphraseth the Apostles words, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth a holy seed, can be true of such a woman as is altogether disabled from child-bearing. And therefore the Apostles argument, understood after Mr. Marshals sense of it, had not resolved the doubt concerning them that were past generation, whereas it is not denied that the resolution reacheth even unto such in case of disparity of religion. As for what Mr. Marshall adds, Besides the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified, I do not understand either what that [it] refers to, or what he means by [reacheth to the bed] nor of whom he means it, nor what he means by [the first part] sith I find no partition of any thing in this answer, nor in what respect or manner the coitus is said to be not onelyonly undefiled but sanctified also, nor to what purpose that is added [even the coitus is not only undefiled but sanctified] and therefore till Mr. Marshall expound, it I must let it pass as the speech of a man between sleeping and waking.
Mr. Marshall goes on. Secondly say you, this reason would then run thus, you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together, from a future event which was uncertain; and here (as I toucht before) you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose: I answer, it is not from a future event but from a positive real truth; if Pauls reason be framed thus, The children which believers beget upon their infidel yoke-fellows are a holy seed, therefore believers have a sanctified use of their infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future Contingent? As for what you here cite out of Chamier, I answer only this, I perswade my self you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation, I assure my self if you be not, your friends are.
An. 1. Mr. Marshall opposeth to a future event a positive real truth ineptly, for to a future event is opposed a thing past or present, not a truth which is a right affirmation or deniall of something; if he would have spoken aptly he should have said [but from a thing present or past] Besides when he saith it is from a positive real truth, not from a future event, he intimates some truths not to be real or positive, but every truth, I conceive, though from a future event is real, that is, not imaginary onelyonly, and every truth is positive, that is, puts things as they are, truth of speech being an agreement with that which is indeed, except he mean by [positive] determinate, according to that which Logicians say, de futuris contingentibus non est determinata veritas.
2. Mr. Marshall quite changeth my reason, and mistakes the point in question which was Whether the sanctification of the unbelieving wife spoken of by the Apostle be meant of instrumental sanctification for the bringing forth a holy seed, which I proved that it could not be so, because then the Apostle should resolve them of their lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertain, which had been absurd and contrary to the very expressions of the Apostle, which imports a thing very certain, yea a thing present or past, as Chamier observed; where the future event is made this, to be sanctified for this purpose, to wit, to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now to be an instrument to bring forth a holy seed is a future event and uncertain, it may be or not be; and this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 13. that they might live together.
Now what saith Mr. Marshall? he tells me if Pauls reason be framed thus, the children which believers beget upon their infidell yokefellows are a holy seed, therefore believers have a sanctified use of their infidel husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future contingent? which is a ridiculous kind of answering, never excepting against my framing the reason, but rather allowing it after, nor denying that the begetting a holy seed was a future contingent, but substituting another reason instead of that framed by me, wherein he makes the Conclusion that which I made, and that rightly, the Apostles medium according to Mr. Marshals interpretation to prove the Apost…es determination, v 13. and he makes the latter part of the 14th. v. the medium to prove the former part, and then asks me had this been a reasoning from a future contingent? which is just as in the proverb, to answer about Onions when the interrogation is about Garlick.
3. Chamiers words were cited by me to confirm my reason, that the sanctification is not to be understood of a future contingent. And for this the words are so pertinent, that it is the express speech of Chamier, and therefore however Mr. Marshall or my friends in their mistake conceive of my citation, I know no reason to be ashamed of it. But I assure my self Mr. Marshall hath much cause to be ashamed, and to be humbl…d before God and men for his so heedless and overly handling a point of such importance, and thereby not onelyonly greatly wronging me, but much more the truth, and Church of God, of which the Lord give him repentance.
But he goes on. Thirdly say you, s…nct…fication is here not ascribed to God as selecting some from other… for such an use, but is common to all unbelieving husbands in respect of their wive, and comes from that commo… relation, not speciall designation. I answer, this argument is a plain setting down the question in controversie, as an argument to prove it self, and I have already proved the contrary, that it is a privilege not common to all who are maried, but peculiar to believers.
Answ. My reason is this, Instrumental sanctification is by Gods speciall designation of some selected by him for special use: this is proved from those places which speak of instrumentall sanctification, of which I alleged two, Jerem. 1. 5. Is…i. 13. 3. to which I might have added Gen. 2. 3. John 10. 36. and it is confirmed by reason. For to be sanctified instrumentally is to be set apart to be an instrument for bringing forth a holy seed, now an instrument must be the instrument of a principall agent, which can be no other than God, nor be sanctified any other way than his special designation; But in this speech of the Ap…stle there is no special designation of one to be an instrument of God, which is proved in that this sanctification comes from the common relation between them and if it came from the faith of one party, yet it is not from speciall designation of God, therefore here is not meant instrumental sanctification. Now I appeal to any whether this be a setting down the question in controversie as an argument to prove its self, and not rather an argument drawn from the genuine description of instrumental sanctification, else where to shew how it agrees not with the sanctification here meant. What he saies he hath proved before, I have examined before, of which the Reader may judge.