Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 22
SECT. XXII.
The objection in my Apology, that according to Mr. Marshals exposition the Apostles reason would prove a fornicatrix believing may live with a fornicator, as well as a maried wife with her husband, is not answered by Mr. Geree or Mr. Church.
YEt one thing more is to be vindicated which Mr. Geree saith is only a cranck I have. I had said in my Apology s. 18. page 96. If the reason of the lawfulness of the living of two persons together in disparity of religion be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife as Mr. Marshals exposition makes it, the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing fornicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator, as may appear by a syllogisticall analysis of the Apostles argument. To this Mr. Geree in his vindiciae vindiciarum ch. 7. page 34. thus speaks, I answer, if all the reason of the lawfulness of a believing wife living with an unbelieving husband were from the faith of the believer, there were some strength in this Consequence; but that we make not all the reason: for the scruple was in the Corinthians, whether notwithstanding their lawful mariage, they might lawfully live together; yes saith the Apostle, the unbeliever (in the use of mariage) for so it must be understood, is sanctified to the believer, else &c. so chast mariage is the ground-work, which satisfied not their consciences, for so were they Ezra 9. & 10. yet was the holy seed polluted, but now saith the Apostle, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, &c. so then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground are supposed to be man and wife; And his Major proposition must be, That man and that wife may lawfully live together whereof one is sanctified to the other, and so his fornicators will be excluded, not concluded.
Ans. It is true, according to the Apostles argument, as he frames it, it is necessary that [husband and wife] should be inserted, but according to Mr. Marshals and others exposition concurrent with his it is not necessary, for they fetch all the reason of the lawfulness of living together from the ones being sanctified to the other, and that they ascribe only to the faith of the one party. Mr. Marshall in his defence page 153. The believer sanctifies the unbeliever. Mr. Blake in his answer to my letter ch. 7. sect. 2. pag. 36. that sanctifying which the Apostle mentions is a result of the faith of the believing yokefellow. Dr. Homes Animad. on my Exercit. page 53. the believers faith hath the only stroke under Christ and his Spirit to sanctifie the unbelieving husband, as sanctifying is here meant. Yea the sanctifying is so entirely ascribed to the faith of one party, that Mr. Marshall who understands by being sanctified made capable to bring forth a holy seed, asserts page 163. that sinfull defiling of one anothers body (by which he means fornication) doth not deprive them of that privilege of the Covenant to have their children accounted to belong to the Church of God, and tells me in the same page, he could name Divines who are no whit inferior to my self that conceive so. And accordingly so Paedobaptists commonly hold and practise. Now if the sanctification of one by another to beget a holy seed be the only reason why the believing husband might live with the unbelieving wife, and this sanctification be by the faith only of one party, insomuch that even an unbelieving fornicator is sanctified by a believing fornicatrix for begetting a holy seed, which Mr. Marshals exposition avers, then according to the same exposition the Apostles reason will as well hold to prove the lawfulness of such fornicators to live together as well as such yoke-fellows.
But saith Mr. Geree, that we make not all the reason, for the scruple of the Corinthians was about maried persons, and accordingly the Apostles resolution, and therefore man and wife must be inserted into the Major proposition.
I answer, it is true, the Corinthians scruple, and the Apostles medium were only of the sanctifying of the husband and wife, as such according to the genuine exposition, and therefore I still contend that the reason of the sanctifying is from the relation of husband and wife, and not from the faith of one p…rty, and so according to my exposition, [husband and wife] necessary to be inserted in the Major. But my argument proceeds from the Apostles reason, not as made by him, but according to Mr. Marshals exposition, who makes the sanctification to be from the faith of one party only, insomuch that he acknowledgeth, that even a fornicator and fornicatrix, if either be a believer, are sanctified to produce a holy seed, and therefore according to his exposition of the Apostle, all the reason of living together is from the faith of the believer, and consequently [husband and wife] not necessary to be inserted in the Major, and so the reason as he expounds it will as well serve to prove that two fornicators may live together, as well as two maried persons.
But saith Mr. Geree of me, He saith it is not necessary to insert [being husband and wife] sith the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them, but to the faith of the one. But I answer, this is no good ground; for though the mariage be no cause of this sanctification, yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution …rue, and on that ground it is made. There's two things required to satisfie spiritual conscience in the use of a thing; First, that it be lawfull in it self. Secondly, that it be holy to us. The former is common to Heathens and Christians (in moral things) The last is the peculiar of believers: if either be wanting, conscience is defiled, and will be disquieted. Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences, is an addition to the law of mariage common with them to heathens, and so we ought not to sever the later from the former which the Apostle supposed.
I answer, Mr. Geree roves from the point, and makes a discourse to prove that which I contend for, that the Apostle supposed that the sanctification was of maried persons. But he should, if he would have answered any thing to the present point, have shewed, that according to Mr. Marshals exposition it is necessary that the persons sanctified one to another be husband and wife that they may lawfully live together, according to his framing the Apostles reason. Till he do this, my argument stands good, and Mr. Marshalls exposition deserves to be exploded.
Mr. Josiah Church in a book entituled, The divine warrant of infant-baptism, (commended by Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts beyond truth and it's desert, it being nothing but a superficial and velitary dressing in a new and that often ambiguous phraseology and fashion old arguments with frequent tautologies, but without distinct stating the point) argum. 1. page 12. takes upon him to answer this reason.
And first he saith, the Apostle would not have answered such a question, whether a believing person might live in fornication with an unbeliever.
Answ. Nor did I say he did or would: but that after Mr. Marshals exposition the words would serve turn to resolve the lawfulness of their living together in fornication, which being an absurd thing, the inference that I make is good, that Mr. Marshals exposition is naught.
2. Saith he, he meant not that faith and the Covenant exclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the infidel in the Christian: As where he saith, every creature of God is good if it be received with thanksgiving, &c. He means not that it is good without a legal right to it, though it be received with thanksgiving (which is usuall in theeves and robbers) but in the case of civil right only: one cause produceth not the effect, una causa non producit effectum.
Answ. If by [he] Mr. Church understand the Apostle, as the words following, as where he saith, &c. which is meant of Paul, seem to import, it is true, the Apostle meant not that the faith and Covenant either exclusively or inclusively were the cause of the sanctification of the infidel in the Christian. But if he meant it of Mr. Marshall it is most false, as is proved before, he makes the faith of the believer the sole cause of the sanctification, so that by him the infidel harlot is sanctified according to his sense by the believing fornicator, and whereas he saith one cause produceth not the effect, though it be true of some Causes, as of remote causes, and not in act, yet, in the sense I used the speech, positâ causâ ponitur effectus, it is alwayes true of the adequate cause in act, which Mr. Marshall acknowlegeth the faith of the believer to be in respect of sanctification for producing a holy seed, and Mr. Church himself in the margin of his book page 4. puts this very axiome as a certain truth, positâ causâ ponitur causatum. But saith Mr. Church,
3. It supposeth a believing adulterer living with an infidel adultress, which is not to be supposed: for a believer may fall into that sin, but living in it is inconsistent with faith and Ecclesiasticall discipline.
Answ. 1. By believer in Mr. Marshals sense is understood one that is so only by profession, and this may be supposed, it being too common in experience, that believers by profession do live incontinently with unbelievers.
2. True believers may have faith suspended in its operation a long time together, and Ecclesiasticall discipline may be remitted.
3. If it were impossible that a believer should live in adultery, yet it is no such strange matter to frame arguments upon things that are not, as when in natural Philosophy there is dispute whether there would be local motion in vacuo, si daretur. But my arguments proceeding upon Mr. Marshals exposition, to shew the falsity of it, in that …ccording to it the Apostles reason would as well serve to prove the lawfulness of two fornicators living together, as two maried persons; there was no need I should suppose the possibility or being of the thing, but only shew the ill Consequence of Mr. Marshals exposition. And the…efore Mt. Church his answering is frivolous, and having perused his book, I know the rest is like this, slighty and superficiall, nor would I have thought it worth while to take so much notice of it, as I have done, but that Mr. Geree and Mr. Roberts commend it so superlatively, as if by it infant-baptism were compendiously and solidly proved by Scripture demonstration; that it is an Iliad in a nutshel; the strength of former writers extracted and contracted. Mr. Marshall tells me thus, your self acknowledge that if these two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained, as well as lost if those be lost. I answer. Mr. Marshall doth me wrong in saying that I acknoowledged that if those two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained, I only said in my Examen page 82. as conceiving by losing these you lose the cause, but page 110. I expressely denied that the cause were gained without a command, though all his five Conclusions were yielded him. Which I still aver. Yea, I say further, that in their dispute for infant-baptism from Circumcision, there are more than a dozen false Hypotheses presumed by them as true in their intangled discourse, justly so called by me in my Apology page 47. by the overthrow of any of which their argument from analogy is enervated. But these things I referre to the remainder of my review of this dispute if ever God enable me, in the mean time blessing the father of Spirits for his assistance to me thus farre in this so knotty and toylsom a work, having had to do with such cross and pettish Antagonists.
I had hoped my work of vindicating my exposition of this text had been here at an end. And perhaps it had been so, if Mr. Richard Baxter had communicated to me animadversions on this writing, when I lent him almost the half of it for his perusal, and expected that as a neighbour and brother in the Lord he should have imparted them to me for the rectifying of me. But he hath chosen rather to print what he had against my exposition, in an injurious manner setting down my words otherwise than he should, without my recension of them, so as thereby to expose me to hatred or contempt. Which course of his if it be not a plain rent and Schism from me, contrary to 1 Cor. 12. 25. I understand not what Schism is. However, sith it so falls out by Gods providence, though it be to my wrong and trouble, yet in hope truth will gain by it, I proceed to examine what Mr. Baxter hath about this Scripture.