Antipædobaptism, or no plain nor obscure scripture-proof of infants baptism, or church-membership, being the first part of the full review of the dispute about infant-baptism: containing an ample disquisition of the ingrassing, Rom. II. 17. the promise, Acts 2. 39. the holinesse of children, I Cor. 7.14. Whereby the expositions of those texts, and arguings thence for infant-baptism by Mr. Stephen Marshall, Mr. John Geere, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Josiah Church; and the arguments of Mr. Nathaniel Stephens for the convertiblity of a word of promise and command, are fully refuted. By John Tombes, B.D.

SECT. XIV.

Mr. Marshals second argument to prove the sanctification 1 Cor. 7. 14. to be meant of instrumentall sanctification and holiness federal, because the person in whom the other is said to be sanctified was a believer, is answered.

MY second argument saith Mr. Marshall was. Had this been the meaning else were your children unclean, but now are they holy, else had your children been bastards, but now are they legiti∣mate, the Apostles answer had not been true, because then if one of the parents had not been a believer, and so by being a believer had sanctified the unbeliever, their children must have been bastards, whereas we know the children born in lawfull wedlock are legitimate though both the parents were unbelievers. To which you an∣swer, this privilege comes not from the faith of the believer, but from the relation of marriage; and your reason is, because the Apostle saith not the unbeliever is sanctified by the be∣liever; but from the husband or the wife; although one or two old copies have the word believer, yet the rest have it not, and the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a believer as well as an husband or wife, yet in this passage they are considered as husband and wife, and not as believers, to intimate that the sanctification did not come by the faith of the pa∣rents, but conjugal relation.

Answ. Mr. Marshall doth vary my words in three particulars to my disadvantage.

1. He sets down my words thus, [this privilege comes not by the faith of the believer] which intimate an acknowledgement of some pri∣viledge asserted by the Apostle to a believer, which I had expressely de∣nied in the very next words before the alleged, and my words were, The holiness here expressed is not from the quality of faith.

2. Mr. Marsh••ll sets down these words as mine, and that in a dif∣ferent letter, that they might be marked [your reason is because the A∣postle saith the unbeliever is sanctified from the husband or wife] by which recital I may seem to the unwary reader to acknowledge this

reading, The unbeliever is sanctified from the wife, whereas I still contend it should be read [in] or [to] rather, and deny that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes any causality, which either [by] or [from] would import, but only the terminus, object, or correlate, to which the other relative refers.

3. Whereas I said in this passage they were considered only as hus∣band or wife, and not as believers, expressing it disjunctively, because I meant it only of the believer, not denying that the unbeliever is con∣sidered as unbeliever, Mr. Marshal recites my words as if I had expres∣sed my self conjunctively [as husband and wife] which is an incommo∣dious expression for the reason given. Having thus set my answer right, though not so full as it is in my Examen, to which I hope the Reader will have an eye, let us consider what Mr. Marshall replies, and so much the rather because in this Argument is his chief strength.

I reply saith he, this expressely crosseth the Apostles confessed scope; for the question was not whether an husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apostle had resolved that case before, v. 10. but whether a believing husband might leave or separate from an un∣believer; No [saith the Apostle] if the unbeliever be content to dwell together, (if not, let them go, a brother or sister is not in bondage in such a case) why? for the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the wife; but now in your sense, the Argument had been as good to say, the un∣believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sancti∣fied in or by the unbeliever, which had been nothing to the question in hand.

Answ. Scope is a greek word, and signifies a mark at which an archer shoots: In the Metaphor the Apostles scope was that which he intended to do, which was to resolve the question, Whether the believer might still dwell with the unbelieving yoke-fellow. The Apostle resolves, the believing party may, and the reason is because the unbelieving party is sanctified: Now if the Apostles argument had been as Mr. Marshall would have it conceived, it might have been according to my sense (which yet I deny) that the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbe∣liever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, yet the scope had been attained, and not crossed; For that was only the resolving of the question from this reason, because the party unbelieving, who oc∣casioned the doubt, is sanctified, which sanctification effected resolves the question, whether it be understood in Mr. Marshalls or my sense, whether truly mine, or imagined to be mine, and therefore this reason of Mr. Marshal that my answer crosseth the Apostles scope comes to

nothing, sith the Apostles scope is not crossed by it expresly or implicit∣ly; but attained by it as well as by Mr. Marshalls. Nevertheless sith an absurdity seems to follow if in my sense the Apostles argument had been as good to say as Mr. Marshall conceives. I answer, 1. Mr. Marshall supposeth that according to my opinion the sanctification is meant of some sanctification properly so called, whereas I make the sanctification by an impropriety or abuse of speech, thus, The unbelie∣ving husband is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified, it is all one to the dwelling together, as if he were sanctified, they may law∣fully couple and continue together, as if he were sanctified. 2. Mr. Marshall supposeth, that in my sense one party is made a cause of the others sanctification, whereas I make the one onely as object, or ter∣minus, or correlate to the other: but the reason or cause of the sactifica∣tion to come from the common conjugall relation between them, and accordingly I grant, that in my sense it might have been truly said (though not pertinently) the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his unbelieving wife, that is, lawfully enjoyed as if he had been sanctified, and the believing wife sanctified to the unbeliever in the same sense: the Apostle not speaking of any sanctification here, but what might agree to them though neither were a believer. 3. Nevertheless I say that in my sense the Apostles argument had not been framed as Mr. Marshall makes it, because I do not understand the sanctification properly, but improperly, or Catachrestically, as I have said, and I deny the reading [by] or [in] in such a sense as Mr. Marshall makes it to have; to wit, to make it imply a causality from one party to ano∣ther, but only I allow a reading [in the wife] so as to note a termination or objective respect. 4. I deny that the Apostles argument had been as good if so framed, because it had not aptly answered the doubt, which was, Whether the believing wife might dwell with the unbe∣lieving husband; whence the Conclusion to be proved was this, That the believing wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband. Now let the argument be framed according as Mr. Marshall saith by my in∣terpretation it will be as good. That wife who hath her unbelieving husband sanctified to her may dwell with him; But the unbelieving wife hath her unbelieving husband sanctified to her. The Conclusion that follows is, Ergo, the unbelieving wife may dwell with the un∣believing husband: which is another proposition than what was to be concluded. But if the right Conclusion be put, The believing wife may dwell with the unbelieving husband, and the same Premises re∣tained, then there will be four terms [believing wife] the Subject in the

Conclusion, but not in the Minor proposition, [the unbelieving wife] the Subject in the Minor, [may dwell with the unbelieving husband] the Predicate in the Conclusion and the Major terminus, and [the wife that hath her husband sanctified to her] the medium. In like manner if it be made thus, The wife who hath her believing husband sanctifi∣ed to her, may dwell with her believing husband, But the unbelie∣ving wife hath her believing husband sanctified to her, Ergo, the un∣believing wife may dwell with her believing husband: this is not the Conclusiuon to be proved. But if the right Conclusion be put, The unbe∣lieving wife may dwell with the believing husband, the same Premi∣ses being retained, there are five terms [the believing wife] the Subject of the Conclusion, [the unbelieving wife] the Subject in the Minor, [may dwell with her unbelieving husband] the Predicate in the Conclusion, [may dwell with her believing husband] the Predicate in the Major, [the having her husband sanctified to her] the medius terminus, which would be monstrous in Logick; and therefore it is most false which Mr. Marshall saith, In my sense the argument had been as good to say the unbeliever is sanctified in or by the unbeliever, or the believer is sanctified in or by the unbeliever; sith either of these medium's in my sense would either have inferr'd another Conclusion than was to be made, or if the right Conclusion were made, the syllogism would have four or five terms, which is monstrous in Logick, and not be a scribed to the Apostle. As for that which Mr. Marshall saith, that the A∣postle had resolved before, v. 10. whether a husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, to psove that it was not the scope of the Apostle, v. 13, 14. to resolve that doubt but another, I answer: Nor do I make the Apostles scope to be to resolve that doubt v. 13, 14. which he had resolved v. 10. but I make the Apostle to resolve v. 13. the same doubt which Mr. Marshall doth, Whether the believer might dwell with the unbeliever; And v. 14. I make the argument, whereby he confirms his determi∣nation in v. 13. which argument, if according to my sense of it, it be the same with that which he had determined v. 10. is so much the fitter for the Apostles scope, sith it being not the Conclusion, but me∣dium to prove it by, it was to be ex notioribus, by things more known, there being no good proof ignoti per ignotum, of a thing unknown by an unknown, but of a thing unknown by a known.

Mr. Marshall goes on. Again the Apostle expressely names the unbeliever in opposition to the wife or husband who is a believer; of which there had been no use if he had intended only a Matrimoniall

sanctification, he migh have said, the wife is sanctified by the hus∣band, and the husband by the wife, let them be what they will, which cannot be spoken truly, when the Scripture saies plainly, nothing which pure or holy to the unbeliever, as Beza well observes upon this place.

Answ. There was use of expressing the unbeliever distinctly for an express resolving the doubt, though the sanctification be meant of ma∣trimonial sanctification; nor had the Apostle clearly resolved the doubt if he had said only, the husband is sanctified to the wife, and the wife to the husband, without expressing the unbeliever. For the argu∣ment then had been thus.

The wife which hath her husband sanctified to her, may dwell with him; any wife hath her husband sanctified to her, Ergo, any wife may dwell with her husband. This Conclusion would resolve the doubt only implicitly, or by consequence to be gathered by them, and therefore not so plainly as was either fit for a Casuist, or needfull for the Corinthians, especially women of tender consciences, not so quick witted as to perceive a Consequence, the doubt being of cohabitation with the unbeliever, precisely for that reason because he was an unbe∣liever. As for that which is said, that it cannot be spoken truly of any husband that he is sanctified by his wife, because nothing is pure or holy to the unbeliever; I answer, it may be truly said in my sense according to the reading I use, that any husband is sanctified to his unbelieving wife, that is lawfully enjoyed without fornication. As for the sanctification proper to believers, it is neither mine nor Mr. Marshalls sense. For his instrumentall sanctification is not by the word and prayer, he acknowledgeth that his instrumentall sanctifica∣tion is in those that have no: true faith, but are only professors of the faith, and not onely when they pray actually, but also when they pray not, but neglecting God follow their lust, yet they beget a seed federal∣ly holy in Mr. Marshals sense; else he will be hard put to it to be assu∣red the child is federally holy when he is to baptize it. Whereas when it is said Tit. 1. 15. to the defil••d and unbelievers nothing is pure, it is plainly meant v. 16. of them that profess they know God, but in works deny him, and the sanctification 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5. is on∣ly then when it is with thanksgiving and prayer. For which reason it is likely that Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. though page 5. he would have the sanctification to be by vertue of true faith, yet where he sets down what he conceives of the Apostles inference and argument page 16. mentions only the holding forth interest in the Covenant of grace, and professing faith therein in a Church-way, which is enough to prove

it is not meant of such a sanctification as the Apostle means Tit. 1. 15. 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5.

Mr. Marshall addes. And though the word [believer] be not in the text, yet it is necessarily implied, and therefore some copies have it in the margin, not only one old copy, and a copy of Clermont, and the vulgar latin so read it, but Augustine also in his book where∣in be expounds the sermon on the mount, and Tertullian in libro secun∣do ad uxorem. For as Beza rightly observes, the question is con∣cerning a believer what he is to dowi••h an unbeliever.

Answ. Though Augustine and Tertullian put in the word [be∣lieving] yet it may be true that all the copies besides those I named reade it without the Epithet of believer, for a citation in an author is not accounted a copy of a book, nor is alwayes exactly done, though I deny not but there may be good use made of such citations to recti∣fie the reading in Copies. I grant that the believer is necessarily and plainly implyed, for the reason Beza gives, nor do I mislike the put∣ting it expressely in a commentary or citation, as Augustine and Ter∣tullian, though not in a copy. But this doth the rather confirm my conceit, sith it being so necessarily and plainly implied, and yet not expressed, it is to me more than probable, that the sanctification of the unbeliever is not from the believing. For who doth ever (spe∣cially in an argument) leave out the word in which is the chief Em∣phasis on which all hangs, and not rather in pronouncing speak it more remarkably, and in writing express it more discernably than o∣ther words? Now Mr. Marshall and those that expound that text this way, make the sanctification of the unbeliever, and the holiness of the children, to be the fruit of the faith of the believer, and ye•• al∣though the term [believer] be necessarily and plainly implyed, it is not expressed at all. Surely in reason, if that the Emphasis, energy, medium, or force, had been in the term [believer] (as they would have it) it would have been expressed, though [wife] had been left out. But when that is left out, and wife and husband twice expressed so di∣stinctly and remarkably, it cannot in reason be conceived, but that the Apostle would thereby lead us to conceive that the sanctification is from the conjugall relation, and not from the faith of one of the parties conjoyned.

Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 2. Finally when in the 16. verse the case is understood of a person which is as well a believer, as an husband or wife, by whom it's said the infidell party may come to be saved, yet that party is barely named wife or

husband, not believing wife or husband, will any now say that there can be no other reason thereof rendred but this, that albeit the party intended were both an husband or wife, and a believer; yet in that particular the party is considered not as a believer, but as an hus∣band or wife? I suppose here the absurdity would be so gross that none would own it, no more let any truly judicious speak that way of that here mentioned, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, or ••••, or in the wife.

Answ. Mr. Cobbet I conceive from some words in Mr. Cottons letter to me meant me in this passage, and opposed it to those words in my Examen (page 75) the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other but that although the person meant were a believer as well as a wife or husband, yet in this passage they were considered on∣ly as husband or wife, and not as believers; to intimate that the san∣ctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from con∣jugall relation, and therefore I thus answer, that Mr. Cobbet doth not fully set down the force of my reason, because he leaves out that which I alleged, that when the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. speaks of the unbelieving party, he doth expressely say [the unbelieving husband] but not when he speaks of the believer: Whereas had he made sancti∣fication a fruit of faith, he would have remarkeably expressed the be∣liever. Now that he doth v. 16. mean the believer, and yet say on∣ly, O wife, O man, serves not to avoid the force of my reason, which was not barely from this that the person though meant to be a believer, yet is not expressed with that Epithete under that notion, but that even where the Emphasis lay in that word, yea after my Anta∣gonists interpretation, all the strength of the Apostles argument lyes in it, yet it was left out, even then when the unbeliever was twice named distinctly. Now neither was any such Emphasis, v. 16. in the term [believer] to require the express mention, it was enough to name the person so as that it might be understood who was meant. For v. 16. is not argumentative to prove the lawfulness of cohabitation as v. 14. wherein is requisite exactness, so as that no part at least not the medium of the argument be left out, but v. 15. 16. are motives to make them yield to the resolution v. 13. & delivered Retorically not Lo∣gically: they are not arguments drawn from something certain in being as v. 14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified, but only inducements from things future and contingent, as from fu∣ture peace and conversion of the infidel: nor is the unbelieving person expressed v. 16. by a term importing that notion as v. 14. 2. Mr. Cobbet seems not to apprehend my meaning in that expression, that

in that passage v. 14. the believer was considered not as a believer, but as husband or wife, which he takes as if I had meant that the Apo∣stle had taken wife or husband with precision or abstraction from be∣liever and unbeliever, and so the Apostle meant it of any husband or wife though an unbeliever. But that was not my meaning, my words being plain [although the person meant were a believer] so I conceived no other person there meant than a believer, nor could be according to the Apostles mind. Yet in that passage the believer is not considered as a believer, that is, as sanctifying the unbeliever in that he was a believer, but as a wife or husband; to intimate, that the sanctifica∣tion is by reason of conjugal relation, as I plainly express my self in that place. Now my reason being thus fram'd and understood, I leave to Mr. Cobbet or any mans judgement that is acquainted with mens writings, whether it be likely the Apostle would have left out a word so Emphaticall, as they would make it, if he had laid the same stress, which my Antagonists do, upon it.

Mr Marshall goes on; and when he sayes the unbelieving party is sanctified in or by the other party, it plainly implies the one party sanctifies the other, viz. the believer sanctifies the unbeliever (not re∣tro) which needed not be said of Matrimonial sanctification as you call it, for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves, not in or by one another, mariage being honourable amongst all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled.

Answ. I still except against the reading [sanctified by the wife] and deny any causality implied by the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when I allow the reading [in] I expound it onely as Beza, respectu uxoris, but pre∣ferre the reading [to] conceiving it clear that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 notes only a terminus, object, or correlate, to which the other party refers, and that the sanctifi∣cation as it is only by an acyrology, catachresis, impropriety or abuse of speech ascribed to the unbeliever, so whatever it be it comes not from one party to another, but from the common relation between them both, because as Mr. Marshall rightly allegeth, mariage is honou∣rable among all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled. If Mr. Marshall will make good his reason, he must prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be rendred [by] and no otherwise, contrary to his own grant, and that it notes a cau∣sality, and that the one sanctifies the other, by the inexistence or act of faith, and that the one is sanctified to the other by reason of their common conjugall relation.

Besides, saith Mr. Marshall, there are words which plainly de∣notate it a little before, a brother or sister, which are taken for belie∣vers

v. 12. if a brother have an unbelieving or infidel wife, v. 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case.

Answ. That the Apostle did express before and after the believer, and not here, makes against Mr. Marshall: for it is a plain argument that the Apostle did not place the Emphasis or medium of his argu∣ment in the word believer, nor make believing the cause of sanctifica∣tion, sith he left it out where it would best have fitted that purpose, and yet exprest it in other places on both sides.

Mr. Marshall concludes thus. And if you should say the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever, not quà believer, but by the word and prayer. I answer, this would make the argument stronger, for it is such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of.

Answ. I neither say, the believing party sanctifies the unbeliever quà believer, nor by the word and prayer, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, is as if he were sanctified, to his wife, and so may be lawfully used by her by vertue of the conjugal relation between them.