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. XV.

Mr. Mashalls 5^th and 8^th arguments being the first and last of his additionals against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in that the sanctification and holiness could not be except one were a believer are answered.

I Shall here answer Mr. Marshals 5^th and 8^th arguments against my interpretation, being the first and last of his additionals, sith the an∣swer already given serves for those also.

First, saith Mr. Marshall page 155. you say the unbelieving hus∣band is sanctified by the wife, and sanctification you here take for chastity, which is a most incongruous speech, to say the one party makes the other chast, if he or she were not unchast how are they made chast by the husband or wife? and if they be unchast, how doth this make them chast? mariage is then honourable or chast when the bed is undefiled, this argument is onely from the unseemliness of the expression.

Answ. I do not say that either sanctification is here taken for cha∣stity, or that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, or

that the one party makes the other chast, but the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is, is as if he were sanctified, so that he may be enjoyed lawfully as a chast husband, without fornication, notwithstanding his unbelief, and this hath no unseemliness of expres∣sion: nor do any of Mr. Marshals inferences follow on it, that either the one was unchast before, or that the one makes the other chast, by my doctrine, and that it is unexplicable how being unchast they should be made chast. These questions arising meerly from Mr. Marshals mistake of my meaning, are impertinent; though in some sense they may be made chast by mariage, who were unchast before, as when two fornicators mary, they now chastly live together, though before unchast. Perkins exposition of Revel. 2. 15. Hosea took a wife of fornication not to maintain her in her sin; but to make her a chast woman.

Lastly saith Mr. Marshall page 156. Yet one argument more I propound, Your sense makes the Apostles argument wholly inconse∣quent, if the unbelieving party were not sanctified [viz. matrimo∣nally) then were your children unclean, that is (in your sense) ba∣stards, which follows not; for if they were both unbelievers, yet their children were not bastards, and if they were both chast (yet being infidels) their children were unclean, id est, infidels and pa∣gans; so that to close this, I retort your own words page 75. That let it be granted (that it is meant of matrimonial sanctification (as of necessity it must) then the uncleanness must be meant of bastardy, and holiness of legitimation, but I say è contra, let this be granted (as of necessity it must) that it is not meant of matrimonial sanctifica∣tion or lawfulness of wedlock, then uncleanness must not be meant of bastardy nor holiness of legitimation, but of some other holiness, which what that is, is next to be enquired.

Answ. This argument also is upon the same mistake as if the sancti∣fication must be by vertue of the faith of the one party as the cause, which is still supposed but never proved. The Apostles Consequence is good as I make it, and Mr. Marshalls retortion vain, as wi••l appear in the issue of the dispute.