Reader
The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind · Thomas Blake

The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 51

CHAP. LI.

1 Cor. 7. 14. Vindicated.

THe next Scripture in which this extent of the Covenant is evidenced, is 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife, and the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified by the husband; elſe were your Children uncleane, but now are they holy. In order to a right underſtanding of theſe words, the whole ſcope of the Apoſtl is to be taken into conſideration, which appears to be this.

The Corinthians converted by the Apoſtles Miniſtery,The Series of the Apoſtles diſpute opened. conſulted him by letters in ſeveral caſes of conſcience; one concerning Marriage, a ſecond concerning things offered to Idols, a third concerning ſpiritual gifts, a fourth concerning collection for the Saints. That of Marriage is firſt ſpoken to, and conſiſts of divers heads, and are all ſatisfied in this Chapter.

One, among the reſt concernes Marriage-eſtate, between a Beleever an an Infidel, a Profeſſour of the true Faith and a Worſhipper of Idols; whether ſuch ſociety may be continued, or muſt be ſeparated. That this was their Quaere, appears by the Apoſtles reſolution,The Corinthians Quaere. He gives in his anſwer in the affirmative, both in the caſe of a beleeving husband joyned to an unbelieving wife, and a beleeving wife joyned to an unbeleeving husband, let him not put her away, let her not leave him, only excepting the caſe of wilful deſertion, when for religions ſake the unbeleeving party leaves; Unbelief breaks not the Marriage-bond, renders it not a nullity, (Religion being not of the ſubſtance of Marriage,) It might make null all Covenants, as well as this Covenant, the Law of God ſeeing that condemnes Marriage-Covenants with unbeleevers, condemnes all other Covenants with them, Deut. 7. 23. Having determined the point in an univerſal propoſition, or that which is equivalent with it, A Beleever and an unbeleever joyned in Wedlock-bond, are not to be ſeparated, He meets with their ſcruples, and anſwers their objections againſt it; That they had their ſcruples, muſt be confeſt, otherwiſe they had never ſent the caſe to the Apoſtle, And thoſe ſcruples which reaſon it ſelf will ſuggeſt, that have a faire colour in Scripture for them,The Corinthians ſcruples. and are met with, and ſatisfied by the Apoſtle in this his anſwer; we muſt take to be their ſcruples and grounds of their feares, Unleſſe we had the Corinthians letter, we have no other way of cognizance of them. And theſe are two.

I ſhall mention the ſecond in the firſt place, ſeeing I am to dwell upon the firſt, and that is their jealouſie of themſelves, of their own ſtanding and perſeverance in the Chriſtian Faith. This in reaſon they might well fear, who ſo active to ſeduce and draw away as a yoke-fellow? and this hath fair colour of Scripture for it, Deut. 7. 4. They will turn away thy ſon from following me, that they may ſerve other gods. Examples are not wanting, Nehem. 13. 26. Did not Solomon King of Iſrael ſin by theſe things? yet among many Nations was there no King like him, who was belov'd of his God, and God made him King over all Iſrael, nevertheleſſe, even him did outlandiſh women cauſe to ſinne. To this the Apoſtle anſwers, and oppoſes the hopes of converſion of the unbelieving party; How knoweſt thou O wife, whether thou ſhalt ſave thy husband? or how knoweſt thou, O man, whether thou ſhalt ſave thy wife? As there is fear of ſeducing, ſo there is hope of converſion.

The other is the condition of their iſſue, leſt they ſhould not be reckoned with the Saints, but of the fellowſhip of uncleane Gentiles. Reaſon is ſtrong for this; they well knew that as it is with the Parent, ſo it is with the Childe; for Church-ſtate and condition, being a priviledge communicable, and derived by deſcent from Parent to Childe. If the Parent were without, and of the Gentiles, the Childe was ever ſuch, and in caſe the parents, were of the people of God, their children were reckoned ſo in like manner. Now Parents being divided, the one holy, the other unclean, they feared that the iſſue would follow the worſer part, a ſtaine would lie upon them, they would be accounted unclean with the unbeleeving parent this hath a faire colour of Scripture likewiſe, and in a like caſe it had been ſo determined, Ezra 10. 3. Now therefore let us make a Covenant with our God, to put away all the wives, and ſuch as are borne of them. The Apoſtle takes off theſe fears of theirs, and tells them that the unbel…ving party doth not (as they fear) defile the iſſue, but is ſanctified, as to iſſue, by the Beleever, ſo that their children are holy, and to be reckoned with the believing Parent, who is a Saint, not unclean, & not reckoned with the unbeleeving parent, who is a Gentile, and ſo takes off their ſcruples reſpective both to themſelves and their iſſue, and quiets their fears. So that ſeveral poſitions might be here laid down for a right underſtanding of the words.

1. By [Beleever] in this place is meant,Explicatory Poſitions. a man or woman profeſſing the true Faith, and bearing the name Chriſtian.

2. By [Unbeleever] is meant, an Infidel▪ an unconverted Gentile, living in Idolatry, ſacrificing to Devils, and not to God, of ſuch the queſtion is put, and not of regenerate and unregenerate, ſuch a ſcruple was never heard, whether or no ſuch might continue marriage ſociety.

3. To be [ſanctified] here, is not to be made holy, which is the caſe of the Regenerate; or to be ſet apart for God, which is the caſe of the viſible Saint and Chriſtian; but together with their yoke-fellow to be an holy root to produce an holy ſeed.

4. By [Holy] is meant, federal holineſſe, to be reputed and received among the people of God, who are holy, no other holineſſe is tranſmittible from parents to children.

5. By [Unclean] is meant, a ſinner of the Gentiles, an alien and ſtranger from the Common-wealth of Iſrael.

6. [Elſe] implies a certainty, that upon this account of ſanctification of the Parent (from whom the ground of fear aroſe) the children are holy, a like certainty that were it not that they were thus ſanctified, they were unclean.

Much ſtir is made about this doubt of the Coronthians,The ground or riſe of the Corinthians ſcruples. from whence it might ariſe. In my apprehenſion, ſayes One, it is likely that the doubt aroſe from the Epiſtle he wrote before to them mentioned, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. not to keep company with Fornicators, or Idolaters, which might occaſion the queſtion, whether they were then to continue with their unbeleeving yoke-fellow. To this conjecture I anſwer.

1. That many will not grant that the Apoſtle wrote any Epiſtle to the Corinthians before this; but as this carries the title of the firſt, ſo there was none before it; and this they do, to make it good that no Scripture given by divine inſpiration is loſt; which would impeach (as they feare) both the providence of God, and the faithfulneſſe of the Church to whom the Oracles of God were concredited. But let it be grauted that he wrote another Epiſtle, which he here mentions; yet the tenth verſe where the ſtreſſe lies ſeems to be his preſent farther explanation of his words there, and no part of the contents of that Epiſtle formerly written, and ſo there is no roome left for this conjecture. But put the caſe, that the ninth and tenth verſes do both expreſſe the Contents of that Epiſtle, yet why do they take both the ends, and leave out the middle? Making their converſe to be with Husbands, or Wives, Fornicators or Idolaters, and not as well with Covetous, or Extortioners? It is anſwered, the middle termes [Covetous and Extortioners] are left out, becauſe I conceived it ſuperfluous for me to put them in. Their only ſcruple I mentioned, was their converſing with the Idolatrous, or unbeleeving yoke-fellow, becauſe the Apoſtle only reſolves that doubt, 1 Cor. 7. 12. 13, 14. about which the diſpute I held was, Whether or no they ſcrupled, converſing with Covetous and Extortioners, I could not tell; becauſe the Apoſtle is ſilent about that doubt. If their ſcruple was concerning converſing with their Idolatrous yoke-fellows, upon occaſion of thoſe words, not to keep them company, they muſt needs ſcruple their converſing with Covetous and Extortioners, Husbands or Wives upon the ſame account, and the Apoſtle being ſilent in his anſwer, it is clear they were ſilent in their letter, and moving no ſcruple, they had no ſcruple; when it is impoſible for them to ſcruple one upon thoſe words, and not ſcruple all. When the Apoſtle names four evils reſpective to civil ſociable converſe, it is a wilde fancy to imagine that they ſhould ſtartle at one (reſpective to their marriage-ſociety) and queſtion no more. I farther adde: If this conjecture hold, the Apoſtle thus writes to the Corinthians, If any brother hath a wife that is an Idolator, Fornicator, a Drunkard or Extortioner, let him not put▪ her away, and to this I am anſwered, Wiſe men do not alwayes ſee the conſequent of that principle which they are poſſeſt with. And how comes it I wonder into any mans thoughts, that the Corinthians had wit to ſee the conſequence from his warning given of one ſort of ſinners, and of never a one of the other named with them? It is further ſaid, If they had the occaſion of the doubt from 1 Cor. 5. 9. doth it follow that the Apoſtle muſt either know, that to have been the occaſion, or reſolve their doubt with reference to it? and if he did, yet there was no neceſſity he ſhould reſolve it in like manner concerning Fornicators, as Idolaters. If the Apoſtle did not know it, how comes it now to be known, did he want their Sagacity? If he did know it, there muſt be a like neceſſity of reſolving the doubt in reference to this, as any other at which they ſcrupled. And if they doubted of all; why is there a neceſſity of clearing one, and not all, the Apoſtle doubtleſſe took in every part, and piece of their ſcruple. It is likely (ſaith one) the Apoſtle took in every part and piece of that which is propounded to him as the Corinthians ſcruple indeed; but there was no neceſſity he ſhould take in every part of that which Maſter Blake may imagine, would have been their ſcruple if my conjecture hold. But there was a neceſſity to take in all that had the ſame evident ground of ſcruple, and which every ratinal man will not onelyonly with me imagine; but certainly conclude (Hoc ſuppoſito) muſt be their ſcruple, Had the Apoſtle taken in every part of their ſcruple, the queſtion about divorce ſo much agitated, would have been determined. It is wonder B. Howſon, Bunney, and others that ſay Moſes permiſſion to put away wives, was in caſe of Adultery only, could not have hit upon this Text which would have ſalved all, to this is anſwered.

If the Apoſtle had taken in every part of the Corinthians imagined ſcruple, and reſolved as I would have it; Yet, this doth not here determine the controverſie ſo much agitated, whether the innocent party might marry after a lawful Divorce.

The full truth is here now ſpoken, ſuch a reſolution had indeed deſtroy'd the the thing ſuppoſed, and there could have been no lawful Divorce; and when the Apoſtle had determined againſt all Divorce, and had given charge, as concerning the unbeleeving wife, ſo concerning the wife of Fornication, If any man have ſuch a wife, let him not put her away, why ſhould there be any diſpute about it, either reſpective to Divorce, or Marriage after it. But as to this enough is ſpoken.

Having examined that which others by their conjecture would make the ground of their ſcruple; I muſt ſpeak to that which we make the occaſion of it before ſuggeſted, viz. that caſe of thoſe Iſraelites, Ezra 9. 10. ch. who upon their returne from their captivity had married ſtrange wives, and were ordered not to live with them, but to put them away with their children, and here to prevent tedious impertinencies, and to make this piece as brief as poſſible, let me premiſe this as an undoubted truth; That theſe Corinthians had their ſcruples concerning their iſſue upon their marriage in their diſparity. That which the Apoſtle ſatiſfies in his Anſwer, that the Corinthians ſcrupled in their letter. This no man can deny, for he writes to give ſatisfaction, (as is plaine, verſe 1.) to their letter-ſcruples: But we ſee in the Text that he as ſatisfies ſcruples concerning themſelves, ſo alſo concerning their iſſue▪ 2. Let the Reader know, that I do not peremptorily determine, that the determination of the caſe of the Iſraelites, for their ſeparation from their wives, and putting away their children with them, did occaſion this ſcruple in the thoughts of theſe Corinthians thus joyned, with unbeleeving yoke-fellows, But I ſay, it is more then probable, that it did either occaſion, or mightily ſtrengthen it, When they are men known in the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 10. 15. and did queſtion their own marriage upon the account of the unbelief of their yoke-fellow, and finding a caſe thus determined, both againſt mother and child for ſeparation, how can we imagine but they hit upon it, and were affected with it? 3. I do not ſay that the Iſraelites caſe and the Corinthians were wholly the ſame, as it ſtood with Iſrael then, and with the Corinthians now: I know it was not, for then either Ezra had, been too harſh in ordering a ſeparation; or Paul too indulgent in determining the lawfulneſſe of the continuance of their marriage-ſociety, and ſo I may ſay of their children; But I ſay their caſes were ſo like, and ſo ſeemingly parallel, that it might well occaſion the Corinthians (thus in conſcience concerned) to judge them the ſame. Their caſes ſomewhat did differ, but the Corinthians had need of the Apoſtles help to ſee the difference. The caſes were the very ſame in themſelves, but different in regard of divers adminiſtrations, under which they reſpectively lived. He that would make their caſe the ſame, (ſaith One) muſt not vary it in one particular: All Caſuiſts and Lawyers determine a Caſe to be varied when one material circumſtance is varied. The Jews being under the Law of Moſes, and profeſſing it; the Corinthians, Chriſtians not ſo, and yet that doubt as if occaſioned by that fact, muſt ariſe from the doubted force of the Law of God. This hits right upon the difference between them, which yet argues them to be ſtill in themſelves the ſame, had not times differenced them; whereas he ſayes, the Jews were under Moſes Law profeſſing it, but the Corinthian-Chriſtians not ſo. I hope he will not deny they were under the Moral Law, the Apoſtle even in this Epiſtle preſſing it upon them, 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Cor. 14. 34. and it was not ſo eaſie for them to determine that the Command, Deut. 7. was judicial, purely reſpecting their relation to thoſe Nations, and ſo their caſe by this meanes better then thoſe Iſraelites, and being not able to determine, their ſcruple remained, and they ſought to the Apoſtle for ſatisfaction in it.

Having enquired into theſe Corinthians ſcruples we are to look further into the meaning of the words,Two heterodoxical interpretations of the words, holy, unclean. and here we might reckon up variety of interpretations of this Text in Ancient and Moderne Writers, moſt of which are generally exploded, as to the words holy and unclean, and therefore I think not fit to trouble the Reader at all with them. Two there are which now appeare eſpecially in competition with this here delivered, which I ſhall hold forth in this place, that the Reader may judge of either.The firſt interpretation ſetting up parent and childe too high, examined The firſt ſets up parent and childe, root and branch too high; The ſecond layes the iſſue too low. The firſt is, that the beleever here mentioned is an elect regenerate man, not only a Profeſſor of the faith, but a man endowed with the grace of faith, not onelyonly of the Church viſible, but of the Church inviſible likewiſe; That the holineſſe here mentioned is a real holineſſe, that is, an holineſſe of regeneration, and the iſſue of one or both regenerate perſons is alſo ſuch, regenerate. The iſſue of the unregenerate is (as they ſay) unregenerate likewiſe, An interpretation as far from the Apoſtles minde as that which is fartheſt, and the doctrine fetched from it as untrue as that which is untrueſt. The Beleever here is the man that is not an Infidel, one that is taken off from Gentiſme to the profeſſion of Chriſtianity. Paulinus (whom Hierome ſo much admired) interprets it (as Hierom relates his words, Ep. 153. of a baptized perſon. The Corinthians never queſtioned the marriage between one party, in whom the power of godlineſſe appears, and another profeſſingly of the ſame faith, though not in that ſincerity, There was never ſuch a ſcruple made, but the marriage between a profeſſor of Chriſtian religion, and a Pagan; Neither is the iſſue of a regenerate man, becauſe his iſſue, regenerate; Habits, neither infuſed, nor acquired, are thus communicated from parent to childe; Neither will it help to ſay that this propoſition is not univerſal, but indefinite, which holds ad plurimum, but not alwayes; The Apoſtles propoſition univerſally holds, now are they holy, not in the opinion of charity, but certainty, where neither are holy, the iſſue, not only ad plurimum, but certainly is unclean, not as to the judgement of our fears, but for his preſent ſtate, ſo infallibly. That aſſertion to help this out, that God draws regeneration through the loynes of the Elect, at leaſt for the moſt part (few elect ones but their children are regenerate) is ſuch a paradox that I ſuppoſe very few will receive; And thence to infer the lawfulneſſe of the Baptiſme of all of ſuch birth, becauſe ſome are regenerate (and as then ſurmiſe the moſt, even in the womb, and from the birth) is a bottome that will not bear it; One without any name hath publiſhed a Treatiſe of Baptiſm, and in it impugnes with all his ſtrength Infant-baptiſme. He takes notice of this, and like poſitions of this nature, as our ground of it, and then endeavours the battery of it It hath paſſed ſome yeers without any anſwer, that I know. I could wiſh that thoſe that maintaine it on theſe grounds, would take upon them a refutation. His reaſons to me (the doctrine ſo grounded) are above anſwer. I have often ſaid, if I be brought to theſe mens premiſſes, I ſhall then conclude with the Antipaedobaptiſts. It ſo much more concerns thoſe, in that the Author (as I hear) was one of their ſociety, and they ſee how frequently their members that are principled againſt Covenant-holineſſe, and borne in hand that the Goſpel ſtrips us of it, do betake themſelves from them into theſe mens tenents.

The ſecond interpretation laies the iſſue too low,The ſecond interpretation laying parent and childe too low. and will have the holineſſe mentioned, to have no reſpect to their ſpiritual or Church-ſtate, but onelyonly their legitimation; They are not baſtards but legitimate, This Text (ſaith One) doth not ſpeak of federal holineſſe, but of holineſſe, that I may ſo call it matrimonial, ſo that the ſenſe is, your children are holy, that is, legitimate; adding whether any in the ages before the age laſt paſt expounded it of federal holineſſe, as they call it, I am not yet certaine, His arguments againſt our interpretation of Covenant-holineſſe and uncleanneſſe, we ſhall examine, being attended as he ſayes, with many abſurdities; in the mean ſpace let me tell him, that his interpretation, underſtanding the Apoſtle as he doth, (The unbeleeving husband is ſanctified in the wife, &c. that is, his ſociety with her is lawful, not adulterous, elſe your children were unclean, that is, baſtards, illegitimate, but now they are holy, that is, of a birth legitimate, not ſpurious) renders the reaſoning here in this place. 1. Childiſh. 2. Incongruous. 3. Untrue.

1. Weak and childiſh,1. Weak and childiſh. to tell the Corinthians if their marriage-ſociety were adulterous, then their children were baſtards, if their marriage were nul, children were illegitimate. This is too low a way of reaſoning und unworthy of the Apoſtle ſuch that every childe well knew before the Apoſtle told them. In that great conteſt about the marriage of Henry the eighth, with the relict of his brother Arthur, (in which the judgement of ſo many Univerſities was deſired) if one had argued, that in caſe this marrige be a nullity, then the Princeſſe is not legitimate: But the Princeſſe is legitimate; Ergo the marriage is no nullity) he would have been looked upon as a ſtrange diſputant.

2. Incongruous To bring phraſes fully anſwering the Church-ſtate and condition of either parents▪ 2. Incongruousbeleeving, unbeleeving, (which in the Scripture is holy and uncleane) and yet to underſtand them of holineſſe, and uncleanneſſe of another kinde, of legitimation and baſtardy, if they may be (as I think they never were) ſo called, is meerly incongruous: That theſe words fully anſwer the Church-ſtate of parents, and the Church-ſtate and condition which the children derive from them, is plaine in that parallel text, Gal. 2. 15. Jews by nature, that is, holy by birth from beleeving parents, not ſinners of the Gentiles, not uncleane by birth from unbeleeving anceſtors; So Maſter Cartwright on theſe words in his anſwer to the Rhemiſts. If you will know what this holineſſe of children new-born is, the Apoſtle telleth you, it is through the Covenant to be a Jew by nature, or birth: and if you will farther underſtand what this uncleanneſſe of children is, the Apoſtle in the ſame place telleth you, it is not to be ſinners by nature, as thoſe which are born of the Heathen. I well know, and acquainted the Reader, p. 2. of my Birth-priviledge, that the Apoſtles ſcope, Gal. 2. 15. is another, viz. to prove that Jews and Gentiles have both one and the ſame juſtification, not by works of the Law, but by Faith, but falling upon the mention of the Jewe and Gentile, he gives them characters (as Maſter Cartwright well obſerves) fully parallel to that which is here delivered.

3. The argument thus underſtood,3. Untrue. is untrue; The ſtreſſe is wholly laid on the beleeving party, as to the holineſſe of the iſſue twice over; The unbeleever is meerly paſſive in it, when the childe hath legitimation equally from both.

Againſt the former interpretation,Arguments evincing the holineſſe in the Text not to be legitimation. and for mine, which Chamier affirmes to be Calvini, & omnium nostrorum, take theſe arguments. 1. That holineſſe which neceſſarily follows to the iſſue, from the ſanctification of an unbeleeving, by a beleeving yoke-fellow, is Covenant holineſſe, and not legitimation: But the holineſſe in this place of the Apoſtle neceſſarily follows to the iſſue, from the ſanctification of an unbeleever by a beleever; Ergo it is Covenant-holineſſe, not legitimation. 2. That which is derived from the eminency of one parent above another, and not equally from both, is not legitimation: But this holineſſe is derived from the eminence of one parent (viz. the beleeving parent above the other;) Ergo it is not legitimation. 3. The reſult or fruit which follows from a beleevers faith is not legitimation: But the holineſſe in the Text is a reſult of the faith of the beleeving yoke-fellow; The minor is evident, ſeeing faith is twice hinted at in the beleever. I know that there is one that denies, that the unbeleeving husband, or wiſe is here ſaid to be ſanctified in the beleeving; It is (ſaith he) in the husband, not in the beleeving husband, in the wife, not in the beleeving wife, that is not in the Text. The marriage is between a beleever and an unbeleever, the unbeleever is ſanctified whether husband or wife by their yoke-fellow, but not as is ſaid, by their beleeving yoke-fellow; the Reader that puts off his reaſon may matter ſuch denials.

To evince ſenſe of baſtardy and legitimation from thoſe words of the Text,The ſanctificat…on ſpoken to, is not of parents in general, but of one parent beleeving, and another unbeleeving in particular. unclean and holy, the Apoſtles argument is put by one into this forme, If the unbeleeving husband were not ſanctified by the wife, then were your children uncleane; But they are not uncleane, but holy; Ergo, the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife. And this ſequel (as is ſaid) were not true, if this propoſition were not true; All the children of thoſe parents where one is not ſanctified to the other, are unclean. The Propoſition is, of an unbelieving husband and a wife, and yet the Propoſition muſt be of all parents, that will prove it, as he that wi… prove, If an Engliſhman be noble, he is honourable, muſt prove it by this univerſal or general, All Noble men are honourable, and not put in all Engliſhmen Noble, for then he antecedent and the concluſion would be all one, whereas the Propoſition proving, muſt be larger then the Propoſition proved, elſe we might conclude ex meris particularibus; To ſay if the unbeleeving husband were not ſanctified by the wife, your children were unclean is all one with this, All the children of the unbeleeving husband not ſanctified to the wife are uncleane. This of it ſelfe is not ſuch, that many words ſhould need to be ſpent about it, But ſeeing that a learned hand, layes ſo much, and ſo great ſtreſs upon it; It may not be ſlightly paſſed over, and who ſees not here a wilde parallel well worthy of ſuch a monſtrous aſſertion, The propoſition is, of two ſtanding in full diſparity, and an inſtance is given in a ſingle perſon, where there is no diſparity at all, and by two adjuncts which are Synonyma: I deſire to know how this ſequel may be proved, If a wife of an ignoble birth be not made Noble by her husband, her iſſue is ignoble; muſt it be proved by this Propoſition, The iſſue of every wife not made noble by her husband, is ignoble? or will it ſerve, The iſſue of every ignoble wife not made noble by her husband is ignoble? If a poore man take a wife, and is not enricht by her, he ſtill remaines in a poore condition; ſhall this be made good by a propoſition, That all men taking wives, and not enricht by them are in a poore condition; or will it ſerve that every poor man taking a wife, and not enricht by her, is in a poore condition? are theſe true, or are they falſe propoſitions. Yea, what is affirmed in his own inſtance, to prove that if an Engliſhman be noble, he is honourable, it is ſufficient to prove it by this Propoſition; All Engliſhmen noble, are honourable, will not hold. Let any one tell me how he will make good this Propoſition: If a Dutchman be borne of a Duke, he is a Duke; if he be borne of an Earle he is an Earle, muſt it be; All men born of Dukes, are Dukes, of Earles, are Earles; This with us in England is falſe, but of all Dutch men thus borne it is truth; But the reaſon given muſt be looked into, The antecedent and the concluſion (ſaith he) would be all one, whereas the Propoſition proving muſt be larger then the Propoſition proved. But who knows not, that the Propoſition proving is larger here then the propoſition proved. A propoſition expreſſ…ly univerſal, is larger in a Logick argument, then either an indefinite or particular. The Propoſition by him excepted againſt, in Logick conſideration is as univerſal as that which is moſt univerſal; Every Engliſhman that is noble, is honourable, is an univerſal Propoſition, as well as every man that is noble, is honourable; and I never learnt that in the quantity of propoſitions, there is magis & minus. I am challenged for ſaying, The truth of the Apoſtles ſequel depends on this propoſition; All the children of an unbeleever are uncleane, unleſſe for generation he or ſhe be ſanctified by a beleever; and addes, I deny it, in that the termes, [for generation by a Beleever] are added by him, not in the Apoſtle, and ſo he changed the termes. I pray leave generation out, and ſee whether there can be any ſenſe in it, unleſſe it be underſtood; Their ſanctification will confer no legitimation, without generation; If I ſay not beleever, I muſt ſay husband or wife that is a beleever.

Another bottome on which the forenamed interpretation is grounded is,The Apoſtle brings not formal arguments to conclude the lawfulneſs of marriage-ſociety, but removes ſcruples concerning their o…n ſtate and their iſſue. That the Apoſtle in this Text brings a formal argument to prove the marriage-ſociety of theſe yoke-fellows to be lawful, which in the two former verſes he had determined, and (as was confeſt before) they ſcrupled, and it cannot be denied but the words at firſt ſight, ſeem to carry ſome colour to underſtand them ſo farre in this ſenſe, as to make them formal, concluding reaſons of his former determination, Having ſaid, verſe 12, 13. If any brother hath a wife that beleeveth not, and ſhe be pleaſed to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman that hath an husband that beleeveth not, and he be pleaſed to dwell with her, let her not leave him; then he adds, For the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife; and the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified by the huſband, elſe were your children unclean, but now are they holy. But the way of inference will as well bear it; that the Apoſtle doth firſt determine the Controverſie by revelation as an Apoſtle, and then takes off their ſcruples which occaſioned their feares, both reſpective to their poſterity and themſelves; This way of interpretation is charged as making the Apoſtle immethodical, but what better method then to determine a point, and then anſwer reaſons againſt it; The Apoſtle meeting with their fears in reſpect both of their poſterity, and themſelves, it muſt needs be that they ſignified them, and he removes them; The Apoſtles method (it is true) and manner of inference indifferently favours either interpretation; But the words themſelves clearly evince, that they are a removal of ſcruples againſt their marriage-ſociety, and not a formal concluding argument for it. Let us look firſt into verſe 16. where [For] may lay as faire a claime to a formal reaſon as this in the fourteenth, and ſuch that ſtand for this interpretation ſay, it is a formal reaſon, But I would faine learn how any one can make it up into a reaſon; He muſt thus draw it up, whom man in marriage-ſociety may have hopes to ſave from idolatrous wayes, with ſuch a one he may continue marriage-ſociety; But a beleeving husband in marriage-ſociety may have hopes to ſave his unbeleeving wife from idolatrous wayes, Ergo. This propoſition as to ſuch a concluſion is. 1. Vaine, for, though there were no ſuch hopes, yet marriage-ſociety is to be continued, Gentiliſme being not of the ſubſiſtence of marriage. 2. This Propoſition is falſe as to this purpoſe; The inceſtuous Corinthian might have hopes to have had converted his fathers wife, (if a Heathen) and yet ſuch hopes would not conclude the lawfulneſſe of their ſociety together; Herod might have had like hopes to have converted his brother Philips wife, and yet this was not objected againſt John Baptiſt, and had it been objected, it had been frivolous. We have many caſes put about marriage, if ſuch an argument would ſerve the turne, it would ſalve them all. And for verſe 14. though I cannot ſay, but in caſe it were made up into a reaſon of the former concluſion, it would contain a truth, and ſo far might paſſe in the way of a reaſon, yet I have many material exceptions againſt it.

1. From the thing it ſelf, it would be a reaſon (though true, yet) ſilly, childiſh, vaine, your married condition is lawful, elſe your children were baſtards; what childe in Corinth (as was hinted when I ſpake of the Apoſtles words, as in themſelves that knew the right hand from the left) but well underſtood it? There is not a boy that plays in the ſtreets, but knows that children born out of wedlock are baſtards. There is a Book publiſhed, putting it to the queſtion, and diſputing it, whether marriages between profeſſours of the true religion and Infidels, and ſo of Papiſt, with Proteſtants, be not ab initio, null, and they to be ſeparated in caſe any ſhall now come in with this argument for the negative, that they are not null, and to conclude their continuance; If ſuch marriage be null; their children are baſtards: But they are not baſtards, Ergo the marriage is not null; the Authour or any other might be brought to a ſmile, not to conviction. As Eraſmus in his cenſure of thoſe ſuppoſitio…s ſpurious Epiſtles that have paſt with many for Pauls to Seneca, charges them with no falſe doctrine, but is bold to ſay, I ſee not what can be ſaid more ſimply or ſenſeleſly, and that there is nothing in them worthy of Pauls ſpirit; So I may ſay of this ſuppoſitio…s ſpurious interpretation put upon this Text in Pauls Epiſtle. Eraſmus is deſervedly troubled that theſe Epiſtles ſhould have their verboſous Comments, any may equally be troubled that ſuch a reaſon ſhould finde defence from any hand in ſo many words.

My next challenge is from the phraſe in which it is delivered, altogether unſutable to a reaſon of this doctrine, upon a threefold account. 1. The Apoſtle being onelyonly to tell them, that the legitimation of their iſſue proved the lawfulneſſe of their marriage-ſociety, he ſhould attribute all (as to either ſex) to the beleever, when the childe owes his legitimation equally to either parent, to the unbeleever as much as the beleever. 2. That being to give reaſon of the lawfulneſſe of marriage in ſuch a ſpecial caſe, he ſhould give his reaſon of equal concernment to all marriages, where both are unbeleevers, both beleevers, as well as this between a beleever and an unbeleever. 3. When he is to ſpeak only of legitimation and baſtardy, he ſhould praiſe it in ſuch uncouth language, and in words, fit it onelyonly, ſutable to their parent, Eccleſiaſtical capacity, whether title to it, as in the beleever, or want of it as in the unbeleever; now, on the other hand interpret the Apoſtles words (as his method will equally bear) accordingly as you have heard before, and no ſuch inconveniency follows from the words either verſe 14. or 16. And now our adverſary may eaſily receive an anſwer to that odious inference, which he makes from our interpretation of Covenant-holineſſe: According to this interpretation (ſaith he) the medium of the Apoſtle to prove the lawfulneſſe of the living of a beleeving wife with an unbeleeving husband, will as well prove the lawfulneſſe of a beleeving fornicatrix with an unbeleeving fornicator, as may appeare (ſaith he) by a Syllogiſticall Analyſis of the Apoſtles argument, the major whereof is this, That man and woman may live together, notwithſtanding the unbelief of one party, whereof one is ſanctified to the other for begetting an holy ſeed. This is manifeſtly the Apoſtles reaſon, he ſayes after our interpretation. But he is manifeſtly miſtaken; not to mention the liberty that he will ſcarce allow another to leave out husband and wife expreſt in the text, and inſtead of it to put man and woman: The Apoſtle doth not conclude the lawfulneſſe of their marriag-ſociety by the federation of their iſſue, but ſhews that the ſuppoſed and feared non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulneſſe, and I dare yeeld that any man and woman may live together, notwithſtanding any feare of the unholineſſe of their iſſue; where one is ſanctified by the faith of another, to the begetting of a ſeed federally holy. And if he will apply this, which the Apoſtle ſpeaks, of a mans living with his wife (ad faciendum populum) to the living with his whore, there is no danger to yeeld it; Pharez his iſſue had belonged to the Common-weale of Iſrael, if Tamar had been an Infidel, as for ought we know, and in all probability it was, with Jephtaes mother. If Sampſon had iſſue by the Harlot of Gaza, Judges 16. 1. ſuch iſſue had belonged to Iſrael, ſuch iſſue male had right to Circumciſion. To gratifie him I ſhall put it under my hand, that if a man have no other reaſon from Scripture to leave his Harlot then the non-federation of his iſſue, he may ſtill abide with her, and that he is not bound upon that ſole account to deſert her If any ſhall attempt to keep up theſe two maine propoſitions by me examined, on which the whole fabrick of a long diſcourſe is built, for to make good the interpretation mentioned, and refute the arguments againſt it, I ſhall readily and willingly look into it, which for ſeveral yeares I have waited, till then I ſhall conclude that federal holineſſe and not legitimation is here intended.

A mighty ſtirre is here further made about inſtrumental ſanctification,A vindication of inſtrumental ſanctification. and arguments heaped by Maſter Tombes againſt it, the moſt of them grounded upon thoſe two Propoſitions (which he would have his Reader beleeve that I confeſſe, when he cannot prove,) That al the children whereof one parent is not ſanctified to the other are unclean; none of the children whereof the one is not ſanctified to the other are cleane, together with the other; That this is a concluding formal reaſon to prove the lawfulneſſe of their abode together; upon this account it is affirmed that our interpretation fits not the caſe of perſons diſabled from procreation, it makes the Apoſtles argument to be from a future contingent, I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether a perſon may be ſaid to be inſtrumentally ſanctified for ſuch an effect which he neither doth nor can produce? Whether a woman may be ſaid to be ſanctified quoad hoc, ſo farre as to bring forth an holy ſeed, by vertue of the faith of her husband, who is by age or accidental impotency utterly diſabled naturally from bearing any children, and hath no ſupernatural power enabling her thereto? whether ſhe may be capable to bring forth an holy ſeed, who is not capable to bring forth any at all? bringing forth an holy ſeed cannot be without bringing forth a ſeed, and therefore the woman uncapable to bring forth a ſeed is uncapable to bring forth an holy ſeed. And I on the contrary appeal to any, yea, the meaneſt Chriſtian whether perſons that have children born in wedlock-bonds, in ſuch diſparity may not have their fears and ſcruples about them, notwithſtanding other in the ſame condition of marriage are childleſſe, or unable to bring forth children? Whether the ſeed which came of thoſe marriages, Ezra 10. were not uncleane, notwithſtanding many ſo married had no children? many of the Prieſts had herein tranſgreſt, and it was but ſome of them that had wives by whom they had children, Ezra 10. 44. And becauſe this is the medium for proof of the Apoſtles determination, verſe 13. that they might live together, it muſt needs be from a future contingent; but when this is no medium for proof of the Apoſtles determination, as hath been ſufficiently ſhewn it is not, this falls with the other.

Two arguments againſt inſtrumental ſanctification I ſhall take notice of, which ſeeme to have ſome other bottome. 1. That the act of producing an holy ſeed is not from any ſpecial deſignation of God, and therefore cannot be meant of inſtrumental ſanctification, ſeeing an inſtrument muſt be the inſtrument of the principal agent which can be no other then God; I am ſure they bring forth children unto God, Ezek. 16. 20. and this they do not independently of themſelves, ſo Chriſt would not have warned, Matth. 23. 10. Call no man father upon earth, for one is your Father whech is in heaven. All natural parents are inſtruments of God to produce a ſeed to people the world, according to that bleſſing of Gen. 1. 28. Gen. 9. 1. Be fruitful and multiply, and repleniſh the earth; All beleeving parents are inſtruments of God for an holy ſeed, it being of his free grace that the promiſe is to them and their ſeed.

The ſecond argument is that many a child of both unbeleeving parents are federaly holy; and being anſwered that they are not ſo at their birth, if afterwards by grace they are changed, this is no fruit of their birth (of which the queſtion is in this place) but the work of the Goſpel through grace. It is replied, This is nothing to the purpoſe, ſith the Propoſition hath not thoſe words in it, nor the Apoſtle; the Apoſtles reaſon ſuppoſeth it cannot be at any time; It ſeems then that the Apoſtles Propoſition hath this in it, that their children ſo borne, are unclean by birth and for all eternity ſhall ſo remaine never to be cleanſed, or elſe this exception is leſſe to purpoſe, who does not ſee that the Apoſtle ſpeaks uncleanneſſe or holineſſe as a product of their birth? without conſideration of any thing which after by providence (through the omnipotence and free grace of God) might happen, as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer, ſhe is enobled by her husband, otherwiſe her iſſue were plebeians, yet ſo as they are capable of honour by the Princes munificence, or their own merit; It ſeems that Propoſition of Chriſts, That which is borne of the fleſh, John 3. 6. will not hold, unleſſe it muſt for ever continue fleſh, and no omnipotence of God ſhall be able to make it otherwiſe. It is further ſaid, and yet it may be certain that the child of two unbeleevers may be federally holy at birth, whether it be underſtood of Election, inherent holineſſe, or outward holineſſe if God pleaſe to work, and declare it. To this I onelyonly ſay, let that propoſition ſtand, till God by ſuch a miracle confute, or contradict it, and whenſoever he ſhall thus own ſuch unclean infants as federally holy, I ſhall be ſilent.

It is farther ſaid, But the iſſue of them that are not lawfully enjoyned as husband and wife, cannot be made legitimate by God, becauſe it is contrary to the definition of legitimation, which is a ſtate conſequent upon birth by the lawful copulation of lawful husband and wife. So that the reply is brought to this, becauſe God by his omnipotence can make our uncleane ones holy, and to make their uncleane ones holy, is without the verge of omnipotence; therefore his interpretation ſtands and ours muſt fall. If we ſhould put caſe in their manner, that God ſhould appear in approbation of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage-ſociety, then there were a legitimation of the iſſue, as he did the marriage of the brothers wife, Deut. 25. 5. otherwiſe againſt the moral Law, Levit. 18. 16. Or as ſome underſtand it, the Prophets taking a wife of whoredoms.