said to save v. â—6 to win 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert James 5. 20. sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God 9. The word holy is expounded in a sense no where else found nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle ch 1. 13 14 15 16 17. 12. 13. For he expounds holy by are admitted to baptism and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere when there was another term baptized used in the same Epistle and familiar to them 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow even by the endeavour of a Father Mother Brother Sister Companion especially a Preacher of the Gospel So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together because one may bring the other to the faith the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter Son and Mother Brother and Sister Companions Preacher and people to couple or live together because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism Himself pag. 257. saith This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing unless there were some hope that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to tâ—â— saith ' twâ—â—lâ— certainly follow their children were unclean that is not admitted to baptism Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted or without hopes or reasonable presumption that he might be won to the faith by the believer It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief And for the other proposition it is a like false that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note as much as hoc posito upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving yoke-fellow and experience of what happened the Corinthian believers yonger children noâ— deemed yet believers were admitted to baptism or were reasonably presumed to be admitted or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists though I know none that so interpret it I use his own words pag. 257. sect 82. mutatis mutandis Now I demand of this pretended interpretation whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer and the other an unbeliever could it of them be concluded if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers as if the childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer and hopes it should be so It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow and hopes so of theirs 12. Unto all these I add that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any Sure I am Augustin tom 7. de pecâ— merito remiss c. 26. saith Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo pâ—ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase Sect. 32. he speaks thus That this is the true importance of the Apostles words and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident First by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English But sayth he It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages even in the Greek though it abound in Tenses above other Languages In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Dr.
nor is there any consideration of a Father entering into Covenant for his childe more than of a Husbands entering into covenant for his wife or a Masters entering into Covenant for his servant and therefore if this fact were good to prove if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering for him and his it is good to prove that if the Husband or Master be a believer the wife and servant are entered into Covenant the Husband and Master entering it for them and theirs and so wives and servants shall be visible Church-members as well as infants of believers by the faith of Husbands and Masters 2. If the parents faith procure this privilege for the child then either because it is his childe and then it procures it for the childe while it is his childe though the childe be at years and an infidel for then it is his childe or else upon condition the childe agree to it but then the privilege belongs not to infants and there is an inherent condition required to wit the childes consent besides the parents faith if it be said that it procures it to the childe while aâ— infant but not when it comes to years how can this be true that the parents faith or covenanting should immediately and directly constitute them visible Church-members when infants because they are their children and the covenant is made with them and their children as they say and yet they not visible Church-members while they are children surely the immediate cause continuing the effect continues and therefore if the parents faith with the covenant make the childe in infancy a visible Church-member it must also make it a visible Church-member at years though an infidel 3. Whereas it is supposed by Mr. B. that the parents as believers entered the covenant Deut. 29. it rather appears by Moses his preface v. 2 3 4. that Moses did therefore draw them into this solemn Covenant because they were to that day unbelievers 4. It is false that this entering into covenant did make them Church-members For. 1. The end of it was to prevent them from backsliding v. 18. to Idolatry and to prevent Gods forsaking them thereupon v. 13. 2. They were Church-members before both by Gods special separating of the whole nation to be his people and the solemn Covenant at mount Horeb and so were members of that Church as part of that nation 3. If this entering into covenant made them there Church-members visible then it made their posterity also then visible Church-members for with them also was that covenant made v. 14 15. and so persons should be made visible Church-members afore they are born 5. If it were true that that covenanting made them visible Church-members of that Church yet it advantageth no whit to prove infants now visible members of the Christian Church which is not national as that was nor gathered by the chief Magistrate as that was nor injoyned such a national Covenant as that but consisting of particular believers of all nations gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel and voluntary personal covenanting for themselves onely testified by their being baptized into Christ. If any ask whether a national covenant or a covenant of parents for children be now allowable I answer I deny not but such a national or parental covenant may be allowed and in some cases covenient yet I say that it makes not all the subjects and children Church-members nor bindes them without their consent any farther than the matter of the covenant it self bindes As for that which Mr. B. saith if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out it is false if we understand it in respect of Church-membership of children at years they may be in the Church visible though their parents were unbelievers and left out of the Church though believers if of justification it is false both of infants and children of years And it is utterly untrue that in the Christian Church children are made visible Church-members by parents faith or left out because of their unbelief For 1. There is no word of Scripture that saith so The three Texs Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16 17. c. 1 Cor. 7. 14. are fully discussed already in the first part of this review and what Mr. Blake hath replied shall be examined God willing in that which follows 2. No one passage of the New Testament doth shew that any infant was reckoned for a visible Church-member of the Christian Church in the New Testament but many shew they were not 3. If the infant children of the faithfull had been accounted in the Apostles times visible members of the Christian Church there had been some thing done by the Apostles and other holy men to have preserved their right but no practise of baptism on them nor any other act can be produced that the Apostles or other holy men did to preserve such a right Ergo. 4. The Covenant of the Gospel is with particular persons made believers out of all nations their gathering by Preaching the Gospel to them which evidently shew that God intended to take in persons into the Christian Church upon their own faith and not in a national way as he did the Church of the Jews 5. The Texts besides the three forenamed brought by the Assembly Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. to wit Ezek. 16. 20 21. Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 17. 7. and the Texts brought by Mr. B. not here examined to wit Matth. 23. 37 38 39. Revel 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 22. Rom. 4. 11. Exod 20. 6. Iosh. 7. 25 26. Deut 13. 12 13 14. Psal. 37. 26. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16 17. Deut. 28. 4 18 32 41. Mal. 2. 15 are so palpably impertinent to prove the visible Church-membership of infants now that I am in a demur with my self whether it be fit for me to bestow any more pains in shewing the impertinency of them 6. The speeches of Protestants of note do make the persons own profession that sign whereby they are judged and from whence they are termed of the visible Church Synops. Profess Leydens Disp. 40. sect 32. Ecclesia visibilis appellatur non tam quia homines ipsi visibiles sunt sed quia ipsorum ordo professio communio sensibus exponuntur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 9. sect 3. visibilis dicitur Ecclesia ratione communionis sensibilis membrorum inter se. Mr. Marshall himself in the Sermon at the Spiâ—â—le April 1652. stiled by Mr. B. that late excellent honest solid Sermon for unity pag. 15. hath these words Secondly that part of the Church which is upon the earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it ly in internal grace which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church but now as the same Church and members doth make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eys and
yoke-fellows 5. There is nothing to answer those words because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith and kept from heathen pollutions and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents doth reasonably presume they will 6. Nor is there any thing answering to these words your children which his own Paraphrase applies to Christians children So that the Doctors Paraphrase is beyond measure culpable in respect of addition 2. It is blameable also in omitting that which the Text expresly and emphatically mentions to wit the terms Wife Husband when he sayth the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and after the probability that the conversation of the believer should bring the unbeliever to the faith which may be meant of a companion brother father mother neighbour 3. There is much faultiness in quite altering the importance of the Apostles words by substituting instead of were or should be in the Apostles words ought to be they will be in the Paraphrase Which is the more blameable in that himself Sect. 82 pag. 257. doth more truly retain the force of those expressions in the Apostle when he sayth The method of the Apostle must needs be this unless there were c. ' â—would certainly follow that their children were unclean so that the pretended brief Paraphrase of the Apostles words is very faulty far from the Rule of a Paraphrase and instead of explaining doth quite pervert the meaning of the words 2. For many other reasons the exposition of the Doctor cannot be right For 1. In his paraphrase of the Apostles resolution v. 12. he puts ought and of v. 13. let her by no means as if the Apostle did make it a necessary duty that they must continue together whereas the Apostle answerably to their doubt doth onely resolve them of the lawfulness of their continuing together not of the necessity of it and so v. 14. is a reason of the lawfulness of it notwithstanding their doubt which appears from the resolution v. 15. If the unbeliever will depart let him depart which cannot be expounded otherwise than thus you are not bound to stay as you are not bound to cause her to depart or to relinquish him you are at your liberty For the very next words a Brother or Sister is not under bondage in such cases do shew that the resolution was of liberty not of duty contrary to the Doctors paraphrase Now that resolution v. 15. is of the same form with his determination v. 12 13. 2. He makes the resolution to be of a duty v. 12 13. yet makes v. 14. to be a motive of the will when he saith may reasonably move as if the Apostle were not deciding a doubt but perswading the will and that from such a thing as cannot be reason of duty or liberty but as it is by him expounded a perswasive to win on the affections not to settle the judgment and yet p. 207. he saith the unbeliever having been sanctified by the believer is used as an argument why they should live together 3. He puts unbelieving Husband v. 14. as if he were another than he that is mentioned v. 13. for v. 13. the unbelieving husband was at that present an unbeliever But according to his sense expounding v. 14. thus it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer the unbelleving husband must be meant of one that was once an unbeliever not so then Now then the Apostle should after this exposition give a reason why the present believing wife need not leave her husband because another unbelieving husband by another believing wife hath been brought to the faith Which wherein it could tend to any satisfaction for them that doubted whether they might lawfully live together because of the present unbelief of the yoke-fellow I see not 4. Such a reason will appear the more unlikely to be satisfactory because as it hath often happened that the unbeliever hath been won by the wife so it hath often happened to the contrary and it is likely the persons whom he resolved had complained that they had small hopes of their husbands conversion and so the reason of their living together from experience would be more likely to be retorted back thus You perswde us to live together you tell us we may because it often comes to pass that the unbeliever is brought to the faith But our experience is to the contrary we see many not converted and our own are obstinate and hardned and therefore this reason doth disswade us and resolve us that we may not live with him 5. Hence another exception is against this exposition that it makes the Apostle to resolve them of their duty or liberty by that which was a meer contingent event which might be or not be For this exposition makes the reason of their living together to be from what had hapened might be whereas a contingent event is impertinent to that end to say we may lawfully do such a thing because its likely such a good effect may follow A contingent event is unfit to resolve of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a thing without some other rule things being unlawfull or lawfull not according to disagreement from or agreement to Gods will of purpose what shall be but his will of Command what he requires to be omitted or done Besides this contingent event here was uncertain as appears v. 16. what knowest thou implies thou canst not tell whether thou shalt save thy husband Perhaps thou mayst Nor doth the Apostle mention any promise it should be so but mentions it onely as a contingent event that might be or not be 6. Besides it is from such an event as is impertinent to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of living together For the past conversion of others and the future conversion of our own yoke-fellows is meerly extrinsecal to our duty or liberty though it be much to our conveniency and therefore it is fitly urged v. 16. after the resolution of the judgment v. 12 13 14 15. Is there any shew of reason why I should live with my own unbelieving husband because anothers unbelieving husband was converted by her or because there is great reason of hope it will be so with mine This would intimate that future events make our present state or acts lawfull or unlawfull which is somewhat like the Turks conceit who judged that pleaseth God which succeeds prosperously and that to displease which fals out unhappily 7. According to this Exposition v. 14. should be the same Argument with v. 16. and so there should be an unnecessary repetition of the same Argument 8. By this exposition the sanctifying of an unbeliever should be ascribed to a woman whereas though I deny not that she is