Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 20
SECT. XX.
That the proposition included in the consequence of the Apostles argument 1 Cor. 7. 14. is not true of instrumental sanctification and federall holiness, but true onelyonly of matrimonial.
MR. Marshall proceeds. Fourthly, say you according to this exposition the words following could not be true, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy, because in this form of reasoning this proposition is included, their children could not be holy without that sanctification: which you say is false, because children may be in covenant, and be regenerate, though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other, the children of infidel parents may be sanctified. I reply, not while they are infants, they are not by any birth-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing, no man ever went about to prove out of this text that none can ever be converted whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other.
Answ. Mr. Marshall leaves out in his repetition sundry words which were of moment to be inserted, to wit, [the proposition had been false understanding it of instrumentall sanctification and of federall or reall inherent present holiness] and after [for the begetting of a holy seed] and [may be in the covenant of grace] are left out. The reason is this. That interpretation which makes the proposition included in the Apostles argument, which is the hinge upon which it turns, to be false, is not right, but the interpreting sanctification of instrumentall sanctification for begetting a holy seed, and holiness of federall or reall inherent present holiness makes the proposition included in the Apostles argument (which is the hinge upon which it turns) to be false; Ergo, it is not the right interpretation. The Major needs no proof: the Minor is proved by shewing, 1. That this proposition is included in the Apostles reasoning [without the sanctification there mentioned, cheir children could not be holy.] 2. This proposition to be false understood of instrumental sanctification and federal or inherent holiness: for then the proposition would be thus [without sanctification to beget a holy seed by the faith of one of the parents the children could not be holy, so as to be in the covenant, that is, to be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ] But this proposition were false in this sense. For the children may be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ without that sanctification. Now what saith Mr. Marshall to this? he denies not that proposition to be included in the Apostles reasoning as set down by me, nor doth he deny the proposition in that sense to be false: onelyonly he saies the proposition is true while they are infants they are not by any birth-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the only thing about which we are disputing.
Whereto I reply, it is not to the present business what is the only thing about which Mr. Marshall and I are disputing, nor what any ever went to prove out of the text: but what is the proposition included in the Apostles reasoning, and whether true in Mr. Marshals sense. Mr. Marshall denies not the proposition to be as I set it down, nor will he avouch it to be true except the words [your children] be restrained to them while they are infants, but the word the Apostle useth is [your children] which is not here or elsewhere restrained to infants, except some other thing so limit it. They were their children when they were of twenty years, as well as when they were of two dayes old: nor is there any thing in the text that restrains it to infants. Now then if the proposition include children of riper years, and they may be accounted visible members of the Church of Christ, though neither parent be a believer, then is the sense which makes this false proposition to be included in the Apostles reasoning a wrong interpretation, nor doth it solve it to say, they are not by brith-privilege to be accounted as belonging to the Church. For the Apostles proposition is not, without that sanctification their children could not be holy by birth-privilege, but they could not be holy at all; yet I adde, that the proposition if [children] were restrained to infants in Mr. Marshals sense, were false. For infants bought by money of any stranger, were circumcised, Gen. 17. 23. and therefore in Mr. Marshals sense federally holy, and usually Paedobaptists in the Reformed Churches do account foundlings and others, whose parents are neither of them a believer, such as are to be baptized, which is that they mean by federally holy.
Mr. Marshall proceeds. Next (after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier) you reason thus, take it in my sense, and it is no satisfactory reason, you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; I answer, this is the same with your second argument answered before; and wherein I pray you lies the weakness of it, you may live together and have a holy use of your unbelieving yoke-fellows, for God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed as truly as if both were believers, is this a slight or unsatisfying answer?
Answ. That which I alleged out of Chamier, was very pertinent to the matter for which I produced it, viz. to prove that to argue from an event, which might possibly not be at all, to resolve the Corinthian Christian▪ that he might lawfully continue with his unbelieving wife, had been unsatisfactory. But I am told this is the same with my second argument answered before, which I acknowledge, and therefore did not make it a distinct argument by it self, but added that and the 6th and 7th so called exceptions only as amplifications of what I said before But Mr. Marshall asks wherein lies the weakness of it? I answer, I told him plainly enough wherein it had been unsatisfactory, in that it would have been a resolution of them of their lawfull living together, from a future contingent, the begetting a holy seed, which some of them perhaps knew would never be, as being disabled from generation. As for that which Mr. Marshall makes his paraphrase of the Apostle, and then askes me is this a slight and unsatisfactory answer? I answer, Mr. Marshals paraphrase here neither agrees with the Apostles words, nor with his own exposition, nor is it a satisfactory answer as he makes it. It agrees not with the Apostles words, 1. Because the apostle doth not use v. 14. a conjunction copulative [foreign, and] but a causal [foreign, for] whereas the paraphrase useth a copulative, you may live together, and have a holy use of your unbelieving yoke-fellows: but the Apostle saith, let her not put him away: for the unbelieving husband, &c. making the latter the medium to prove the former. Now Mr. Marshall by using [and] instead of [for] makes one copulative proposition of both, and so quite marres the Apostles reason. 2. Mr. Marshall puts nothing in his paraphrase to answer to those words [else were your children unclean] though it be a main part of the Apostles reason. Nor doth this paraphrase agree with Mr. Marshall… own exposition. For 1. His own exposition is, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband quoad hoc, so farre as to bring forth a holy seed: but this is not all one with his paraphrase, you may have a holy use of unbelieving yoke-fellows. Forasmuch as there may be an holy use of unbelieving yokefellows, otherwise than by bringing forth a holy seed. 2. Mr. Marshalls exposition of those words [but now are they ho…y] is, that they are to b… accounted by men belonging …o the Church of Christ: but here he paraphrase…h them thus [God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed, as truly as if both were believers] so that Mr. Marshall doth but wast paper by a frivolous question nothing to the purpose, sith my exception was not against this new paraphrase as unsatisfactory, but against that other which I conceived, and Mr. Marshall denies not to express his meaning, and I have often told him it had been unsatisfactory, and I gave him my reason for it, which he hath not yet refuted. And yet as I said, so I conceive this new-shaped paraphrase yields not a satisfactory reason to prove that the believer may live with the unbeliever, because God esteems their children holy, sith the doubt was about their own cohabitation, not of retaining their children: yea Gods esteeming the child holy only for the believers sake, and not the unbeliever, might rather increase their doubt whether they might then live with the party not esteemed holy by God. But Mr. Marshall hath yet more to say about this exception, and he thus speaks.
Nay I adde further, had the Apostle gon about to prove that a believing wife & a believing husband have not only a lawfull enjoyment one of another (as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures, because else their children were unclean, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former: for you might have said this only reaches those that are of age. Secondly, this depends upon a future contingent. Thirdly, this depends upon their common relation. Fourthly, and children may be holy, that is, afterward regenerate, though this be denied, let the Reader consider of it.
Answ. When the Reader hath considered this observation of Mr. Ma…shall, he shall only find Mr. Marshall continuing to talk at randome. He first makes a new supposition of another case of two believers, and then speaks of their having not onelyonly a lawful enjoyment of one another (as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures. Which neither expresseth what I or himself meant by [the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife] and then adds, the rest of the Apostles reason v. 14. and then tells me my exceptions would lie as strongly against this last as against the former; which it seems he accounts an absurdity sufficient to invalidate my exceptions. Wherein he doth but beat the air; my exceptions were not against the word [sanctified] used in the sense here expressed, but against the understanding by it instrumentall sanctification for bringing forth a holy seed, which is not all one with having a sanctified enjoyment of one another, as they have of other creatures: now if my exceptions lie as strong against that exposition of instrumentall sanctification, if the Apostle had spoken of two believers as well as now when he speaks of one believer and the other an unbeliever, I know no absurdity therein nor any thing to infringe the strength of them, but rather to confirm them. And therefore I see not how he should trouble the Reader with this new supposition and the inference thereupon, except it be to puzzle him, as himself seems to have been. But he proceeds further and tells me,
You go on, and say that in your sense the reason is plain and satisfactory, let them live together though one be a believer, the other an unbeliever, for notwithstanding this difference in religion they are husband and wife, mariage being honourable among all, and the bed undefiled. I reply, but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple; their doubt was not whether their mariage were lawfull while they were heathen, but whether now their consciences would not be defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters, and the Apostles resolution must remove that which your sense doth not; you granted they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed.
Answ. Though Mr. Marshal by maintaining my words detracts from the clearness of them, yet, letting that pass, lets view what he replies. He tells us that their scruple was not whether their mariage were lawfull while they were heathens. To which I assent, there is no difference between us about the scruple, nor about the Apostles resolution, v. 12, 13. and therefore if it be the Apostles resolution that removes the doubt, my sense being all one with Mr. Marshals, if that removes the doubt, my sense removes it well as his. All the difference is about expounding v. 14. which whether it be more satisfactory according to my sense, or his, may be judged from that which is above shewed. As for that which he addes, that I grant they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore my sense could not have removed the scruple as is above shewed, I know not where he shewed this above. I confess he took on him to shew that if they doubted not of the legitimation of their children, they could not doubt of the lawfulness of their mariage, which hath been sufficiently answered already. But I am yet to seek that which he saith here, he hath shewed above, that because they doubted not of the legitimation of their children, therefore my sense could not have removed the scruple.
Mr. Marshall adds. And whereas you adde the like resolution he gives v. 17. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants, they might still continue with their masters, their Christian calling did not dissolve these relations, I answer, in one word this like hath no likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt these two cases, he speaks not one word about believing servants continuing with unbelieving masters, but of servants in generall, whether their masters were believers or unbelievers, he tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs freemen, yet if they can fairly obtain their freedom let them choose that rather.
Answ. Mr. Marshall tells me, this like hath no likeness at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt the two cases. But what though the cases be not parallel, yet the resolution may be like, yea the cases may be like though not parallel, sith parallel being a term taken from Geometry by which are meant lines equally distant, it in the Metaphor imports a more exact and even answerableness than the term likeness. And though there is no express mention of unbelieving masters, yet they being included in the generall term masters, the resolution is, that they might, though the Lords freemen, continue with their unbelieving masters. Which resolution I am sure hath some likeness with this here, that the believing wife might continue with her unbelieving husband.