Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 21
SECT. XXI.
It is at large shewed that neither Mr. Marshall in his Sermon, nor his Defence, hath answered the objection from the inconsistency of the Apostles included proposition with his exposition.
MR: Marshal proceeds thus. One argument more you bring against this interpretation, if the sanctification were meant of matrimonial sanctification, and the uncleanness of federal uncleanness, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of Saving graces or Church-privileges, then the proposition was most false, because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other were within the Covenant, as Pharez, Jephta and others. I answer, First, I desire the Reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place, as I do, for Church-privileges. Secondly, indeed if sanctification be taken for matrimonial sanctification, or lawfulness of wedlock, and uncleanness of federal sanctification, the proposition may be granted to be false, and let them who so take it undertake the defence of it if they can; but let it be meant of that other sanctification which I have justified, then the proposition is most true, I say again, all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant, in respect of Church-privileges at least, if not of Saving graces (which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other.
Answ. 1. What Mr. Marshall desires the Reader to take notice of, that I take the Covenant here in this place as he do…h for Churchprivileges, because I speak thus, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of Saving graces or Church-privileges, is frivolous, sith the Reader might easily perceive the meaning of it to be whether of Saving graces as it ought to be taken, or of Church-privileges as Mr. Marshall though abusively takes it. So that it is so farre from being true, that I take the Covenant there for Church-privileges, that the contrary is rather true, sith I express it so only to recite Mr. Marshals use of it, not mine own.
2. Mr. Marshall, as in other things, so in this, through haste (as I conceive) handles this reason of mine so indistinctly and imperfectly, that the Reader cannot from his words or mine, as they are by him recited, know what the proposition is, about the falsity or truth of which we are disputing, because both that which leads to it, and the proposition it self included in the Apostles reason, and not denied to be so by Mr. Marshall, is omitte… by him. Wherefore because the chief point of the dispute about the meaning of the text lies in this, it is necessary before I answer the rest of Mr. Marshals wrangling (as I may truly call it rather than disputing about this text,) to put the Reader briefly in mind of the state of the point in difference between us, desiring him, if he seek the truth, to weigh better my words in my Examen, than I think Mr. Marshall, or Mr. Geree, or any of those that have taken upon them to answer me, have done. Briefly thus, after I had shewed that when the Apostle saies [the unbelieving wife is sanctified in or to the husband] the meaning is not as Mr. Marshall, [the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband so farre as to bring forth an holy seed] which after Mr. Thomas Goodwin I call instrumental sanctification, but thus, [that the unbelieving wife though an unbeliever, is lawfully enjoyed by her own husband as a wife without pollution, as if she were sanctified] which I called for distinction sake matrimonial sanctification, and then having shewed that the words [else were your children unclean, but now they are holy] are an argument ab absurdo consequente, if that were not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, I shewed by reducing it into syllogisticall form that this Hypothetical proposition being the Major [if the unbelieving wife were not sanctified to or in the husband, your children were unclean if the Consequence be good, this proposition must be true [all the children of those parents whereof the one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean] which I confirmed by alleging rightly and pertinently Chamiers words against Augustines interpretation, Panstrat. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. s. 67. which shew that he avers the Apostles reason to include these two propositions [omnes nati ex iis pa…entibus quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera, sunt impuri, nunquam parentes quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera gignunt liberos puros sive sanctos] I inferred that this proposition [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are unclean, or no such children can be clean] cannot be true of matrimoniall sanctification (which I had first demonstrated to be the sense) and federall uncleanness, whether by it be meant exclusion from the Covenant of saving graces or Church-privileges, forasmuch as Pharez, and Zara, Jephta and others were in the Covenant, though the one parent were not sanctified to the other. Now what saith Mr. Marshall to this? First he saith the proposition if understood of matrimonial sanctification (not rightly expressed by him according to my mind of lawfulness of wedlock) and uncleanness of federal sanctification (it should be uncleanness) may be granted to be false, he will not undertake the defence of it. So then all rests on this, whether I have proved my sense of matrimonial sanctification, which whether I have done or no let the Reader judge. Sure I am Beza annot. in locum paraphraseth it thus. Fidelis uxor potest Andr. River. sum. controv. tract 3 q. 3. s. 8. Apostolus docet conjugem infidelem sanctificariin fideli nō per infidelem ut Jesuita interpretatur. Id verò nô intelligitur de sanctificationae, personâ sed ejus usu in vinculo conjugali, &c.cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere. Piscator sch: in 1 Cor. 7. 14. Sanctificatus est, id est usus illius ut sanctus et conscientiam uxoris non laedens concessus est. Zegedin. loc. com. page 357. Rationem sumit a licito usu matrimonii, ac totius vitae, neque enim copula infidelis fidelis inquinatur. Sanctificatur infidelis à fideli quo ad usum et communionem thori, ab effectu, si immundum esset vestrum conjugium, et libri qui ininde nascerentur immundi essent, at non sunt immundi. Menochius, Sanctificatur matrimonium, et conjunctio haec Sancta est, unde non profanatur neque polluitur fidelis per cōtractum infidelis. Grot. annot. Hic foreign & foreign dicuntur foreign, pro usu viri aut uxoris, id est consuetudine conjugali. I confess divers do conceive the sanctification to be the fruit of the faith of the one party, and that the unbeliever is said to be sanctified by the other either because the believer leads the other to the faith, or that the prayers of the believer make the conjugal use holy to the believer (which sense I observed above to be embraced by Mr. Cobbet, but neither to be right, nor for his advantage) and other conceits there are about this. But the most common I have met with in Protestant Divines, who yet avouch hence federall holiness of children, is to understand the sanctification of the unbeliever to be in the lawfull continuance of conjugal use without fornication, so that the sanctification excludes no other impurity than unlawful use of mariage. As for instrumentall sanctification for begetting a holy seed I still say, as the first I ever heard use the term was Mr. Thomas Goodwin, so likewise he was the first I observed so expounding it. And therefore there is good cause of suspition of it for its novelty as well as for its falsity.
But saith Mr. Marshall. Let it be meant of that other sanctification which I have justified, the proposition is most true. I say again, all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of the Church-privileges at least, if not of Saving graces (which is a secret left to God) unless the one be sanctified in the other.
Answ. Though it had been fit he had in this place expressed distinctly what he means by being sanctified, or the sanctification which he hath justified, yet I am content to make supply of that defect from the bottom of the same page 162. where he thus speaks, there is no such barre to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth aholy seed. This then is the proposition which according to Mr. Marshalls exposition is included in the Apostles argument [all the children of those parents the one whereof is an unbeliever, or whereof the one is not sanctified in the other, quoad hoc so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, are unclean, that is, federally unclean, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church-privileges t… least, if not of Saving graces.] This Mr. Marshall averres to be true, I averre it to be manifestly false, even according to Mr. Marshals own hypotheses. For 1. They who were to be Crcumcised were not excluded out of the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges. But children were to be Circumcised of whose parents neither was a believer nor the one sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed in Mr. Marshalls sense. Ergo some children whereof neither parent was a believer, nor sanctified the one in the other in Mr. Marshals sense, were not excluded out of the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges, which is contradictory to Mr. Marshals proposition, and consequently the proposition conceived by Mr. Marshall in the Apostles reasoning is not true: nor his exposition of the Apostle, right. The Major needs no proof, to be of right Circumcised being in Mr. Marshals sense one way of being included in the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges. The Minor is proved by sundry instances, In the first institution of Circumcision God appointed Gen. 17. 12. 13. that the male child of eight daies old who was bought with money of any stranger which was not of Abrahams seed, should be Circumcised. Now such had neither parent sanctified in the other in Mr. Marshals sense, sith neither parent was a believer; And accordingly the practise of the Jews was when they took any children captive, or bought servants, they did Circumcise them though neither parent was a believer, 1 Mac. 2. 46. See Selden de jure Nat. & Gent. Juxta discip. Heb. l. 2. c. 2. 3. Besides the proselytes of the Gentiles had been excluded from being Circumcised if the proposition included in the Apostles reason were to be understood in Mr. Marshals sense, sith they had neither parent a believer; nor doth it avail to say they were not excluded when they embraced the Covenant, but they were not by birth-privilege included, for the Apostles proposition hath not that limitation in it [all the children whereof neither parent is a believer are excluded from Church-privileges by birth] but simply [are unclan] that is, excluded from Church-privilege (if that were the meaning of the term unclean) anyway, yea so as to make it impossible they should be ever clean, Mr. Marshall not denying page 160. nor Mr. Blake in his answer to my letter pag. 36. this proposition to be included [without that sanctification their children could not be holy] now such a speech excludes holiness from such at all times, and therefore Chamier as conceiving the exclusion to be perpetual expressed himself thus, nunquamne infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis? 2. They who are to be baptized are not excluded out of the Covenant, in regard of Church-privileges, but the children of those parents whereof neither is a believer, nor sanctified the one in the other, in Mr. Marshals sense, may be baptized. As for instance, all the believers of the Gentiles newly converted, the Eunuch Acts 8. Cornelius Acts 10. the children of the Iews whose parents were hardned against the doctrine of Christ, were children of parents whereof neither was a believer, and so not sanctified the one in the other, in Mr. Marshals sense, and yet baptized. Nor is it of any moment to say they were not infants; for neither doth the word [children] note only infants, nor doth any thing in the text restrain it to the time of infancy, yea many interpreters that conceive the holiness would be by receiving the faith, do thereby shew that they understand it of them when of grown years. Besides according to the doctrine of Mr. Rutherfurd both in his temperate plea ch. 12. concl. 1. arg. 7. and in his due right of Presbyteries ch. 4. sect. 6. page 260. 261. &c. the infants are capable of baptism whose nearest parents are professed unbelievers, and the Grave confutation of Brownists published by Mr. Rathband part 3. page 50. makes children capable of baptism if any of their ancestors in any generation were faithful. And the practice of Paedobaptists is usual to baptize infants whose parents are uncertain, if born in a Countrey where the faith of Christ is professed. Yea however Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. would (though vainly) that the changing of the person when the Apostle saith [your children] notes the children of inchurched professors by Covenant, whence it would follow that they onelyonly (if his exposition were good) should be capable of baptism, yet Mr. Cotton who so much commends him in his Epistle before Mr. Nortons answer to Apollonius saith in his way of the Churches of Christ in New England c. 7. s. 2. what hindereth but that if the parents will design their infant to be educated in the house of any godly member of the Church, the child may lawfully be baptized in the right of its houshold governour, according to the proportion of the law. Gen. 17. 12, 13. Therefore certainly according to the Paedobaptists hypotheses the proposition included in the Apostles reason were in Mr. Marshals sense most false, and consequently his exposition not right.
But to follow Mr. Marshall. This argument (saith he) I answerd in my sermon and framed it thus, that holiness is here meant which could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified to the other, but federall holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other, as in bastardy, Davids child by Bethsheba, &c. in which case the children were federally holy, and yet the harlot not sanctified in or to the adulterer or fornicator though a believer. My answer was, that the Apostles scope in this argument is to shew that the children born of an unbeliever would not be holy unless the other parent could remove that bar, but hath no force of an argument where both the parents are believers, which was the case of the Jews, the case of Hargar, Bersheba, &c. All the reply you make to it page (80) is to bestow a few scoffes upon it, that my answer is to deny the Conclusion, that I shew no fault either in the matter or the form of the argument, that the scope which I mention is but a meer figmen…; that I do as good as say, that the objector can make no argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no answer; and that in one place I grant the Minor, then the Major, and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that some Readers are prone to think him to have the truth, that speaks most bravingly, I durst (without adding a word more) leave all scholars to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorn.
Answ. To the imputation of scorn, vapouring, braving, I have answered in my Apology, sect. 5. page 24. I say still that Mr. Marshal in answering the argument in his Sermon did not follow the rules of Logick I have learned in the Schools in which I was bred, which were to shew some fault in matter or form, of which Mr. Marshal doth neither. I adde now that I have read Aristotles Elenchs, Keckermans Systeme, Fasciculus praeceptorum Logic. and many other Logicians who give rules about answering, and I am confident Mr. Marshall cannot shew that his pretended answer is agreeable to the rules which either those or any other Logician gives. Mr. Geree to help out Mr. Marshal here saies in his vindic. paedobapt. pag. 29. he tells you, you frame not your objection right, id est, you dispute not ad idem: you dispute fallaciously, ex ignoratione Elenchi: for the question is not of the holiness of children of parents in generall not sanctified to one another, but where one is an unbeliever and not sanctified to the other. I answer, Keckerman, Syst. Log. lib. 3. sect. 3. c. 2. saith truly, that there is an ignoratio Elenchi in a syllogism when the Conclusion doth not directly oppose the position of the adversary, an Elench being as Aristotle in his Elenchs, a syllogism with contradiction of the Conclusion. Now the position of Mr. Marshall was that federal holiness was meant 1 Cor. 7. 14. And my Conclusion was, federal holiness is not there meant. If this be not a direct opposition or contradiction of Mr. Marshals Conclusion, let it be shewed what condition is wanting; He tells me the question is not of the holiness of the parents in general, &c. whether he expressed well Mr. Marshals conceit will appear by that which follows. For the present, the question to be concluded was neither the one, nor the other, but this, whether federal holiness be meant in the words [but now are they holy] and the Conclusion in the argument denying it, there was a direct disputation ad idem, and no ignoratio Elenchi as Mr. Geree unskilfully allegeth. What I said, that it is a meer figment, that the Apostles scope in this argument is to shew that the children born of an unbeliever would not be holy unless the other parent could remove that bar, was truly said by me, there being no such scope in the Apostles words. But the scope is plainly to shew they might lawfully live together, notwithstanding the unbelief of one party; nor is there a word in the Apostle of a barre against producing a holy seed, nor of removing such a barre, or removing it by the believership of one party: all these I again a vouch to be meer figments and Chimaeras imagined in Mr. Marshals phantasy, not gathered from the apostles words. And when he saith [hath no force of an argument] if he means the Apostles scope, which seems to be the Nominative case to [hath] I know not how to make good sense of it; nor did I ever place the force of an argument in the Apostles scope; but in the argument of the Apostle and the proposition which the Apostles argument presupposeth as true. And I say still Mr. Marshal made no answer to it at all, but both granted Major and Minor without denying the form of it to be good. But perhaps he hath mended the matter in his defence; let's hear then what he saith.
But lest you go on in your vain boasting, I shall apply my answer more particularly to the argument which you acknowledge to be your own, And I say plainly that the Major proposition is not true if taken universally, viz. that holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless one of the parents be sanctified in or by the other, what ever those parents be, though both of them be believers. This proposition (say I) is not true, because when both the parents are believers, there is no such barre to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and that sinful defiling of one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of the parents being an unbeliever or infidel must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that barre be removed to them, it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other (the unbeliever in or by the believer) their children would not be holy; If therefore you make not your Major so universall, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the argument thus, That holiness of the children is here meant which could not be unless the one were sanctified in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel, but this was the case of Hagar, Bersheba, Jephta, Pharez, &c. now your Minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers, though sinfull in that act: And now I pray you where lies the absurdity or weakness of my answer; all this I said before, only you would not see it; and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing than by solemn refuting.
Answ. No other refuting of an answer to an objection is necessary than to shew that it is no answer according to Logick rules, which I did concerning Mr. Marshals answer, by telling him that he neither shewed faultiness in the matter, nor form of the objection. What refuting Mr. Marshall calls solemn, and what solemnity is required in refuting, I do not well understand; [solemn] is a term of law, and then a thing is done solemnly when it is done according to certain words or rites prescribed. If my refuting were not in set words or rites (though I know not what solemnity in refuting Logicians prescribe other than I have used) it's not material, if it were right. I neither used scoffing, nor thought to carry any thing with more advantage by it. I do not think Mr. Marshall said all before, that now he doth, and I would both then and now see his answer if it were to be seen, which yet is to me either non-sense or non-apparens. Wherein the absurdity and weakness of his answer lies, I shall tell him the rather because he prays me. Mr. Marshal tells me I acknowledge the argument to be mine own. And it is true for the matter of it, I owned it, but as for the form, it being not framed by me, but Mr. Marshall, as he acknowledgeth, It liked me not well when I wrote my Examen, and when I wrote my Apology I less liked of it, as may be perceived by my mending of it in my Apology sect. 5. page 24. where I say the truth is, the argument should be thus framed. That holiness which might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant; but federal holiness might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other; Ergo, federal holiness is not here meant: or thus, that uncleanness which doth not agree to all the children of those whose parents are not sanctified one in or to another, is not here meant; but federall uncleanness doth not agree to all the children of those parents who are not sanctified one in or to another, Ergo, federall uncleanness is not here meant; but because these two propositions are in a manner equipollent [that holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be unles one of the parents were sanctified to the other] and this [that holiness which might be though one of the parents were not sanctified to the other, is not here meant] therefore in my Examen I did not alter the Ma…or proposition, but saith Mr. Marshall the Major is not true if taken universally, viz. That holiness of children is here meant which could not be unless one of the parents be sanstified in or by the other, what ever those parenes be, though both of them be believers.
Answ. I deny not that I take it so universally, or more universally, whether the one parent be a believer and the other an unbeliever, or neither of them a believer, or both them are believers, their children are not, cannot be holy in the Apostles sense, unless the one be sanctified in or to the other, and this proposition is included in the Apostles argument as I have above demonstrated. But Mr. Marshall saith it is not true when both of them are believers. Answ. This then is not true according to Mr. Marshall, that if two parents be believers, the one is sanctified by the other for bringing forth a holy seed, and their children federally holy. But I had thought, it had been more certainly, and undoubtedly true according to Mr. Marshalls hypotheses, the reason proceeding à fortiori, if the belief of the one party sanctifies the other unbeliever, for bringing forth a holy seed, the belief of both parties much more, and if the children of the one parent being a believer, are in the Covenant in respect of Church-privileges, much more the children of both parents being believers: else the children of both parents being believers have less privilege than when on only is a believer, and Mr. Marshall doth ill to baptize any children whereof both their parents are believers, they being according to him not sanctified to bring forth a holy seed, and so consequently their children not federally holy: which I presume his fellow assertors of Paedobaptism will disclaim as very absurd. But let us hear Mr. Marshals reason.
This proposition (I say) is not true, because when both the parents are believers, there is no such barre to be removed by the ones being sanctified in the other, quoad hoc, so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and sinfull defiling one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God.
Answ. Mr. Marshall upon his figment of the Apostles scope to remove a barre conceives this proposition not to be true [the children could not be holy unless one of the parents were sanctified in or by another, when both are believers] because then there is no barre to be removed. A barre is but a metaphor, and in proper sense is nothing but a let or impediment: what let or impediment for begetting a holy seed is to be removed when one is an unbeliever, which is not to be removed when both are believers, I cannot conceive: if the barre be the parents not being in Covenant, it is surely removed as well when both are in Covenant, as when one: if to have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church (as the words after seem to mean) that barre is removed, and to be removed, as well when both parents believe, as when one onelyonly, according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses. And if there be no barre to be removed which should hinder their holiness, then it is much more certain they are holy according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses.
When Mr. Marshall addes, And that sinful defiling of one anothers body doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God; I understand not what this makes to prove the proposition not to be true universally taken, or that there is no barre to be removed when both parents are believers. The speech it self as I understand it is the assertion of the Minor in the objection, That the children may be holy with federal holiness where one of the parents is not sanctified to the other with matrimoniall sanctification, which is lawfull use of each other.
But saith Mr. Marshall, when one of the parents being an unbeliever or infidel must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unless that barre be rem…ved to them, it's true, that unless the one be sanctified in the other (the unbeliever in or by the believer) their children would not be holy.
Answ. Neither is the proposition in this manner true according to Mr. Marshals sense, as I have proved above, where I have shewed, that children whereof neither parent was a believer were to be Circumcised, and according to Paedobaptists hypotheses to be baptized.
Mr. Marshall goes on. If therefore you make not your Major so universall, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the argument thus, that holiness of children is here meant, which could not be unless the one were sanctified in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel.
Answ. If the argument be mine, it is not Mr. Marshalls part to frame it as he pleaseth, but to answer it as he finds it made by me.
But saith he, the Apostle doth so limit it.
Answ. It is true that the truth of the Major proposition in the objection doth depend upon the proposition implied in the Consequence of the Apostles argument, which is, [if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified to the husband, your children are unclean]; which depends upon the truth of this proposition [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean] or this, [none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are holy.] These propositions neither are limited by the Apostle as Mr. Marshall saies, nor did Chamier Panstrat. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. s. 78, conceive they were to be limited otherwise than I do, when he said, omnesne na…i ex iis parentibus quorum alter non sanctificatur in altera geniti sunt in menstruis? Ita oportet sanè, aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem. Nor is it necessary they should be so limited, for though the Conclusion be only of one believing parent, and another unbelieving, yet the proposition proving it must be larger, of all parents sanctified or not sanctified one in or to another, as I answered Mr. Blake in my postscript to my Apology page 123. If a man will prove this, if an English-man be noble, he is honourable, he is to prove it by this [all noble men are honourable] nor is he to adde [English-men] unless the reason of the honourableness were from the being an English-man, and not barely from being noble: so here, this Consequence [if the unbelieving wife be not sanctified to the husband, your children were unclean] is proved by this [all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean] and there's no need, nor fitness to put in [all the children of the parents whereof one is an unbeliever not sanctified to the believer, are unclean] and the reason hereof is, because the force of the sequel depends not at all upon this, that one was an unbeliever: yea the unbeliever is put by the Apostle, not to shew that his being an unbeliever was the reason of the sanctification or holiness, but it is added as if he had said [the unbelieving husband though an unbeliever] to intimate, thatash is unbelief is no cause of the sanctification, so neirher is it a hinderance, though doubted to be so by the Corinthians. And the term [believer] is omitted quite, because the force of the sequel lay in this, that the one patent is sanctified to the other, whether they be believers or unbelievers, one or both. But if the proposition were to be limited, as Mr. Marshall would have it, thus [unless the one be sanctified in the other, the one of the parents being an infidel, their children would not be holy] it would be most false according to Mr. Marshals doctrin. For then it would be true, that the children of both believers are federally unclean, none of them holy, that is, in the Covenant, in respect of Church privileges, for then there is no barre to be removed, then they are not sanctified the one in the other, whereas according to his own doctrine the children of both believers are more certainly in the Covenant. Yea, page 160. of his defence he himself saith thus: For God esteems the seed of such to be an holy seed, as truly as if both were believers. Which speech supposeth it undoubted that the children of both believers are a holy seed. And this (though I find him rather a confused disputer than subtill) yet there is reason to conceive Mr. Marshall saw: for having made this the Major in the argument [that holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be unless one were sanctifi…d in or to the other, the one of the parents being an infidel] whereas he should have assumed [but federal hol…ness could be though one of the pa…ents were not sanctified in or to the other, the one being an infidel] and then have denied it, foreseeing (as it is likely) this would be false with this limitation [that federal holiness of children could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified in the other, the one beeng an infidell] he thrusts in for the Minor another proposition than was in the objection, whether fraudulently or unskilfully I leave it to his own conscience to judge, and saith thus.
But this was the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, Jepthta, Pharez, &c. now your minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers though sinfull in that act.
Whetein Mr. Marshall after he had mis-shaped the Major of my argument after his own mind, leaves out the proposition, which a Logician would have expected to have been put as the Minor, and puts another instead thereof▪ which would make the objection a monstrous syllogism, and then calls it my Minor, and tells me, now your Minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their parents were unbelievers though sinfull in that act, whereas the Minor in the argument I owned was [but federall holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified one in or to the other] which had been true whether both parents were believers, or one onelyonly, though the copulation were unlawfull.
But saith Mr. Marshall, now your Minor, the case of Hagar Bathsheba, Jepthta, Pharez, &c. is false, this was not their case, neither of them were unbelievers though sinful in that act.
Answ. Whether Hagar, or Thamar, or Jephtas mother were unbelievers, I know not: M. Marshall after calls Thamar a Gentile. The thing I alleged was not that they were unbelievers, but that those women, & the fathers of the children named, were not sanctified one in or to another, and yet the children according to Mr. Marshals hypotheses federally holy; yet If I had put the instance in a child of the Ammonitess wife of Solomon, of whom mention is 1 Kings 11. 7, 8. that she sacrificed to Molech, yet that child had been federally holy notwithstanding Solomon and that woman were not sanctified one in or to another; yea the children of Ahab and Jezabel, or any concubine unlawfully used by him, though a worshipper of Baal, being born in Israel, and descended from Abraham, had been federally holy in M. Marshals sense, that is to be Circumcised, though the parents were both gross Idolaters, worshippers of Baal, and such as persecuted the Lords Prophets, being manifest unbelievers. And therfore let Mr. Marshall fashion the argument how he will, it would be false in his sense of instrumental sanctification and federall uncleanness and holiness which the Apostles argument presupposeth that all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean, or none of them holy: much more if by [sanctified] be meant matrimonially (which I conceive I have demonstrated) and true only of matrimoniall sanctification and holiness: and therefore do conclude that Mr. Marshals interpretation is manifestly false, and mine true foreign which I was to demonstrate.
But Mr. Marshall tells me; In the close I added indeed, if a believer should adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan, this objection in that case deserves to be further weighed, but here it comes not within the compass of the Apostles argument; upon this also you bestow two or three scoffes, you call it a wise remedy, nothing to the purpose; & you construe it as if I had said, I will not answer the objection which is made, but if you will make it thus and thus I will answer it. Truly Sir, I am perswaded, all learned men either laugh at or pitty this vanity of your disputing; in sober sadness tell me, was this the scruple of the Corinthians? or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers and infidel harlots? doth he not confine himself to answer cases betwixt believers, and their unbelieving wives and husbands? or do both these cases require one and the self same answer?
Answ. To that of scoffing I have answered in my Apology s. 5. page 24. Of my construction of Mr. Marshals addition there was reason. However Mr. Marshall be perswaded all learned men laugh at or pitty the vanity of my disputing, yet my disputation hath had the approbation of as learned in this kind as Mr. Marshal, and perhaps any other of the Assembly, and though I do not think it any matter of laughter, yet I conceive it cause of much pitty to them, and mourning to the Church of God, that there is such vain overly disputing in Mr. Marshall, and I fear by the texts added to their confession of faith, and other things I have heard in the Assembly about this matter, which I am confident would appear to any intelligent man, if from the texts alleged by them for infants baptism and Church visibility arguments were framed in a syllogisticall way. Sure it is no laughing matter, but lamentable, that men should for not apprehending doubtfull disputations be adjudged unfit to live at liberty in the Commonwealth, or in imployment of preaching the Gospel, or enjoyment of Christian Communion. But Mr. Marshal falls a posing me, and askes me four questions, which lest the Reader should take the not answering to be tergiversation, I will answer. The first is, Was this the scruple of the Corinthians? Answ. This, what? belike whether believers and infidel harlots might live together. I tell him in sober sadness I know not all the scruples the Corinthians had, but the scruple here answered I have often told him is, whether the believing yoke-fellow might live with the unbelieving yoke-fellow: The second, or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of believers and infidel harlots? I answer him, no. To the third, doth he not confine himself to answer cases betwixt believers and their unbelieving wives and husbands? I answer Yea. To the fourth, or do both these cases require one and the same answer. I answer, it may be they do, it may be they do not. I shall tell him more distinctly whether they do or not, if I can, when he distinctly sets down the cases, and the questions upon the cases, if he think fit to make use of me for his Casuist. In the mean time I crave the Readers pardon for answering such trifling and impertinent questions; yet Mr. Marshal hath not done with me but adds.
To speak plainly, I could name Divines who are no whit inferior to your self, who conceive that a believer, even when he commits fornication with an infidel, doth so farre remove the barre in the unbelieving party, as that the child is (in the believing parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God; but because I knew that question fell not within the Corinthians case, and was a question which the text and controversie in hand did not tie me to give a resolution to, I purposely baulked it, not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenuous, to say no worse, who would have said the baulking of this question had been the yielding of the cause; and I say again, this case of bastards concerns not the Apostles case, who speaks not of parents adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one a believer the other not; yet this advantage may be made of those instances, that if among the Jews, the true Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to be maried) were federally holy, as in the case of Pharez and Thamar, then may one party a believer interest their children in the same Covenant; and if bastards among the Jews were partakers of Church-privileges, much more reasonable may it seem, that the children of both chast parents, whereof the one at least is a believer, should be federally holy, it being Gods rule in this case, partus sequitur meliorem partem.
Answ. It is easie for Mr. Marshall to name Divines superior to me every way: but concerning the baulking of the question of which he speaks, what ever he did in his Sermon, he hath spoken plainly enough in the same page to it in his defence, where he saith, and that sinfull defiling of one anothers body doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God. If he mean me by his adversary (as I know not whom else he should mean) whom he chargeth with want of ingenuity to say, no worse (though perhaps he thinks worse) for saying the baulking of this question had been the yielding of the cause, I wonder where he finds those words of mine; his speech to me seems like the talk of a man in a dream; what he addes, that this case of bastards concerns not the Apostles case, yet some advantage may be made of my instances, I answer. 1. The case of bastards as by me alleged concerns the Apostles dispute as by Mr. Marshal interpreted. 2. The advantage will not be worth his labour, till he prove that there is the same reason of baptizing our infants now, as of circumcising Jews infants then, which will never be done till Mr. Marshall can shew a command for baptizing infants, sith he confesseth truly page 182. of his defence, in these words [and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God; Yet the Covenant of grace, or their Church-state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to] that the formall reason of the Jews circumcision was the command of God: and therfore till alike Command be shewed for infant-baptism as for infant-circumcision, there is not parity of reason for one as the other, and so the argument for infant-baptism from analogy conceived between Circumcision and Baptism is evacuated, as I truly a verre in my Apology s. 18. page 97. 98. Nor is the asserting a thing as Gods mind in positive rites without a command, though seeming reasonable to us, any other than a seminary of superstitions, as I often in my Exercitation and Examen have observed concerning Popish superstitions. As for that which he speaks of Gods rule in that case, partus sequitur meliorem partem, it is for ought I know a rule of Mr. Marshals invention. In Law they say, partus sequitur ventrem, but in Divinity I know no such rule that any parent under the Gospel, communicates by birth any Covenant-holiness or Church-privilege, but the rule is now and still hath been, God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens, Rom. 9. 18. And thus is Mr. Marshal again beaten from his chief hold.