The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism, Treatise · Part 1 · Chapter 1

The Estate of Children of Church Members and their Right to Baptism · Treatise · Part 1 · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. 1. Sect. I. The Explication of 1 Cor. 7. 14.

THE Church of Corinth, having written to Paul about ſome caſes of conſcience touching matrimony, with which ſome of the members had acquainted the Church; the Apoſtle in this Chapter returneth anſwer thereunto from Verſ. 1. to 15. To the firſt queſtion, Whether a Chriſtian in ſuch a time as then it was, might marry, hee anſwereth affirmatively, they may, Verſ. 1, 2. The ſecond queſtion, What due benevolence Chriſtian yokefellowes doe owe to each other, is anſwered, Verſ. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. A third caſe, much like to the firſt, viz. How farre it is meet for widowers, or other unmarried perſons to remaine ſo, is anſwered further, Verſ. 8. 9. A fourth caſe, touching the lawfulneſſe or unlawfulneſſe of divorce, is anſwered, Verſ. 10. 11. A fifth caſe, Whether perſons being unequally yoaked, the beleeving party may abide with the Infidell, or with a good conſcience may continue cohabitation and communion; p. 2this is anſwered from Verſ. 11. to the 25. In which anſwer, you have firſt, The Inſtructor, viz. not the Lord Jeſus immediatly and perſonally, who albeit hee ſpake by word of mouth to that other caſe of divorce, Matth. 5. 39. and 19 9. yet to this other caſe laſt mentioned, he expreſſely ſpake not (not the Lord) but I Paul, ſpeake rather expreſly by word of mouth to this laſt caſe, albeit what I alſo herein ſpeake, I ſpeake by divine Inſpiration from the Spirit of the Lord, Verſ. 40. Secondly, you have the matter of this divine mandatory anſwer; and therein, 1. An Inhibition of any ſuch refuſall of deſired conjugall communion and cohabitation with an Infidell yoke-fellow, verſ. 12, 13 This he confirmeth by 4 reaſons. 1. Becauſe no pollution of conſcience ariſeth from ſuch conjugall cohabitation unto the beleeving party, but rather a ſanctification of the infidell. 2. Becauſe inward and outward peace is furthered by ſuch cohabitation Ver. 15. 3. Becauſe thereby an opportunitie is offered of gaining the Infidell party to the faith, Verſ. 16. 4. Becauſe each Chriſtian is bound to be content with their calling, Verſ. 17. whether reſpecting nationall, Verſ. 18, 19, 20. or perſonall references, Verſ. 21, 22, 23, 24. 2 A …oleration and grant of libertie in a paſſive way, in caſe of being wilfully and hatefully rejected by an Infidell ſpouſe, to the beleeving party. This rather needing the check and bit, then the looſing of the reines, he doth but touch it. In the firſt reaſon of the Inhibition lay the weight of the ſcruple of ſundry of the Corinthian Church-members troubled conſciences, and therefore Paul backeth that reaſon with another diſtinct reaſon to confirme it, in the later end of the foureteenth Verſ. viz. elſe were, &c. but now, &c. where the words foreign uſed in Argumentations, as 1 Cor. 5. 10. and the particle foreign, in like ſort uſed 1 Cor. 12. 18. 20. ſo Rom. 3. 21. Heb. 8. 6. and 9. 26. and 11. 16. doe declare that that ſentence is annexed in way of Argument to the propoſition immediatly before.

SECT. II.

ERe we launch into this deep, ſo variouſly coaſted and ſounded, let us premiſe ſome few things.

1. That the perſons moving this ſcruple, were not perſons then to marry, as if that were inquired: whether it were meet for a beleeving party to match with an Infidell, forbidden 2 Cor. 6. but they were parties actually married, husband and wife.

2. That ſuch as moved the caſe, were not couples whereof both were Infidels, and out of the Church: nor yet both viſibly beleeving p. 3and in Church-fellowſhip: but perſons unequally yoaked; one beleeving Chriſtian, and of the Church: the other Infidell, Pagan, and without.

3. That it was not the caſe properly and originally of the whole Church, but of ſome members in it, like as the former caſes about perſons which were to marry were the caſes onelyonly of ſome.

4. That the ground of the beleeving parties ſcruple touching abiding in a conjugall way with their Infidell Yokefellowes lay in their perplexing feare, leſt their ſoules might come to bee thereby polluted; as having fellowſhip with ſuch whoſe unbeleefe of it ſelfe tended to make ſuch a courſe in it ſelfe lawfull to become unſanctified, Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 15. 8. and 21. 4. And ſome other way they doubted they might runne hazard of participation and reflexion of guilt by intimacy of Communion, as Nebem. 13. 25, 26. or the like.

5. That the whole Church of Corinth ingaged and imbarqued themſelves in this caſe of ſome of their particular members, ſo farre as to write for ſatisfaction about it, 2 Cor. 1. 2. compared with Chap. 7. 1, &c.

6. That by the words foregoing, husband, wife, is intended onelyonly the beleeving parties, whether husband or wife: and that alſo they were conſidered in this paſſage, of ſuch, as to, in, or by whom the Infidell parties were ſanctified, not meerely as husbands and wives, but as beleeving. The former I thinke none will deny: For what had the Church to do with thoſe couples whereof both were without? or what likelihood was it, that Pagan couples ſhould ſcruple ſuch abode upon any ground of pollution of conſcience, which they feared? Beſides, the occaſion of this Verſ. 12. The huſband having ſuch a wife is expreſly called a brother, verſ. 15. in the reſolution of the matter in caſe of wilfull rejection, what liberty may be taken: The parties chiefely intereſſed, are called by the name of brother and ſiſter. The ſecond is as evident, that in this caſe, they are conſidered as beleevers, both by the oppoſition of them to the unbeleeving parties, in regard of whom they ſcrupled pollution: and in that that being ſanctified, is not appropriated in any way of efficiency to the unbeleevers; thus. The wife is ſanctified to, in, or by the unbeleeving husband, or the husband is ſanctified, to, in, or by the unbeleeving wife; as if the unbeleeving party were chiefe in this; but contrariwiſe, rather the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified in, to, or by the wife, &c. Finally, when in the 16. verſe the p. 4caſe is underſtood of a perſon, which is as well a beleever, as an husband or wife, by whom it's ſaid the other infidell party may come to bee ſaved, yet that party is barely named wife or husband, not beleeving 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 beleever: yet in that particular the party is conſidered, not as a beleever, but as an huſband or wife? I ſuppoſe here the abſurditie would bee ſo groſſe, that none would owne it, no more let any truely judicious ſpeake that way of that here mentioned; the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by, or to, or in the wife.

7. That the words foreign or foreign, are thus to bee underſtood, by the particle [foreign] in, or to, or by, as our tranſlators have rendred it, for ſo alſo that particle is frequently uſed, for foreign, per, or by, as John 1. 4. life in, or by him: So Rom. 5. 15. The Gift, in or by grace: So 1 Cor. 15. 21, 22. in one verſe, 'tis by man, and by man, verſe 22. expreſſed, die in Adam, in Chriſt made alive, or by him. So, 2 Cor. 6. 6, 7. in or by knowledge pureneſſe, &c. and verſ. 7. in, or by the word of truth, there 'tis [foreign] in the next phraſe it is foreign. In the ſame ſenſe by the power of God, &c. But I contend not, if rendred in, or to, the husband or wife.

By [Sanctified] is not meant made Gratious, or Converted. This might be poſſible, verſ. 16. yet uncertaine; not knowne: but this is ſo, de praeſenti, the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified.

2. Nor is it meant barely, being made a lawfull husband or wife, of whom the other party might make lawfull uſe: John Spilsbury is right in that: That the Corinthians never ſcrupled that, but that marriage fellowſhip was honorable, and the bed undefiled. This was ſo, to and among all, Pagan or Chriſtian, equally or unequally yoked in the dayes of the Author to the Hebrews, Heb. 13. 4. This was no ſuch puzling caſe, that they need write to an Apoſtle ſo ſolemnly about it from learned Corinth, where they had ſo much, if not too much civill and common Law. And to what purpoſe were it to make ſo narrow a Plaiſter, as that of civill lawfulneſſe of conjugall uſe to ſo broad a ſore, as a troubled conſcience: knowing, that many things may be by civill Lawes lawfull, yet tender conſciences dare not take libertie to make uſe thereof accordingly▪ ſome Lawes, even amongſt Gods people, were made rather for their hardneſſe of heart, as that of divorce, Matth. 19. 8. then otherwiſe; yea this was to give Phyſick which did not ſuite with the p. 5malady: The Corinthians not being troubled about the matter of lawfulneſſe of marriage fellowſhip. That bed was to all Corinthians, as well as others, counted in it ſelfe undefiled. But rather, whether that uſe was ſanctified to them; ſo, as that which was in it ſelfe lawfull, did not by the Infidels ſinne become defiled, yea, ſo farre, as that they partaking with them in that marriage uſe, ſhould partake with them in ſome defilement of conſcience. The Apoſtle when ſpeaking to the caſe as beleevers were Intereſted in it, hee ſaith more in that, the unbeleeving husband or wife is ſanctified to the other party; then thus: that ſuch become lawfull husband or wife to ſuch, or their conjugall uſe lawfull. Beleevers in all lawfull things have all which others have, ſcil. lawfull uſe thereof: as men: but they have more then any unbeleeving Infidell perſons have, or can have, whilſt Infidell, even a holy uſe thereof alſo as beleevers; To the pure all things are pure: ſcil. not onelyonly lawfull, for ſo meate, and drinke, and phyſick, and marriage, &c. are to others, but holy in and for the uſe thereof: Each one which hath a lawfull uſe of a perſon or thing, hath not therefore an holy uſe thereof. To the impure and unbeleeving many things, as plowing, apparell, conjugall cohabitation, &c. are in themſelves lawfull, yet nothing is pure to them, but their conſciences are defiled in the uſe thereof, Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 24. 4. whether the promiſe give right to ſuch and ſuch bleſſings, or no, or whether ever the bleſſing of the bleſſings bee pleaded for in prayer, or no, men may have a lawfull uſe of their meate and ſleep, &c but ſuch have the holy uſe, or every thing is ſanctified to ſuch by the word and prayer, which improve the ſame for that end, 1 Tim. 4. 5. for ſo hee giveth meate to them which feare him, as mindfull of his covenant, Pſal. 111. 5. and ſo hee giveth his beloved ſleepe, Pſal. 127. 2.

The eighth and laſt thing premiſed is, that the Apoſtle in the Argument which hee uſeth here to confirme that of ſuch yokefellowes, being thus ſanctified to, or by the beleeving parties, hee changeth the perſon, from the third to the ſecond: as concerning and nearely touching the body of the Church collectively; eſpecially ſuch as were parents and had children. The caſe might originally reſpect ſome few: yea, but hee argueth about it not thus: Elſe their children were uncleane, &c. but elſe your children were uncleane, but now are they holy, as extending it to all the children of the Church, and to the children of the members of it, whether the parents were both fathers and mothers of the Church, as p. 6it was the caſe of many, or whether the fathers or mothers onelyonly were in the Church, which was the caſe of ſome.

SECT. III.

ANd now to aſcend the Watch-Tower. Albeit Gigantine Caſuiſts have done worthily, yet let a dwarfe on their ſhoulders mention what roaving fancies he diſcovers to miſſe, and what explication hee obſerveth to hold a right and ſtreight courſe, and to weather, and directly to fall in with, and come up to the point of divine truth, circumſcribed in the clauſe mentioned, [Elſe your children were uncleane, but now they are holy.]

And here, but barely to name explications of the words, uncleane, and holy, to which our oppoſites ſtick not: As when holy is uſed as oppoſed to corporally uncleane by actuall luſts; as 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Theſſ. 4. 4. or holy, as actually holy for office, Numb 16. 7. or holy, for a perſon borne without ſinne, and ſo not inherently uncleane: So onelyonly the Child Jeſus, was not uncleane, but holy, Act. 3. Prov. 20. Job 23. Albeit, groſſer Anabaptiſts ſome of them have not doubted to affirme this of other children alſo; or holy for one perſonally holy, or truely gratious and godly, wee contend not to determine of all beleevers children, that they are thus. Albeit, wee are charitable in our thoughts and hopes this way, of this or that particular child: or holy, for perſons elected or ſaved: we doe not poſitively affirme this neither of all them conſidered together: Albeit we hope the beſt of the particular children preſented to us: and yet we judge that a moſt unſound and uncharitable ſpeech of I. S. in his booke againſt Infants-Baptiſme, p. 3. That Infants in reſpect of their nonage are neither ſubjects of election, nor ſubjects capable of glory; **Me thinks theſe words do ſavour much of the Popiſh Arminian Tenet of foreſeen faith.Contrary to that Rom. 9. 10, 11, 12. Eſay 65. 20. ſome beleevers Infants die Infants: will any ſay, they are all damned? God forbid. Yea, but if ſuppoſed to bee ſaved, then to bee glorified, unleſſe ſome Limbus Infantum be imagined, which is neither the place of glory, nor of damnation. And if ſuppoſed to come to glory, they are capable ſubjects of it, unleſſe God order any to glory, whom he fitteth not for it. If ſuppoſed to be ſayed, then alſo elected, and ſo ſubjects of election, or perſons in whom election is partly ſubjected; unleſſe it be ſuppoſed either that ſome reprobates, or perſons not elected, nor capable of being elected are ſaved, or that there is ſome middle ſtate betwixt Iacob have I loved before he had done good, & Eſau have I hated or p. 7rejected before hee had done actually evill. Contrary to Rom. 9. And ſuppoſing that ſuch Infants dying Infants, are elected and glorified, it muſt be concluded, that as Infants, they were ſubjects of election, and are capable of glory, unleſſe any will fondly imagine that God in chooſing them eyed them as other perſons then ever they lived to become, or glorified other perſons, then ever they were in glorifying of them; for dying Infants they never came to be other then Infants.

Nor by holy, is meant ceremonially holy; of which holineſſe the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, as is evident by the mention of the inſtrumentall meanes of ſprinkling of bulls and goats blood, Heb. 9. 13. which Mr. B. would ſeeme to draw as if intended of outward holineſſe now viſible to the Church, when it's evidently ſpoken of that branch of Jewiſh ceremoniall holineſſe now abrogated.

Nor by holy, is meant here perſons which poſſibly may be converted; but this is but a may bee in reſpect of all ſuch children: whereas the Apoſtle ſaith peremptorily, they are, not they may bee holy.

Nor by holy, is meant perſons that may be religiouſly educated, as I doe not remember ſuch uſe of the word holy in Scripture: however, it is not here the thing intended; for the Apoſtle poſitively ſaith, they are, not, they may be holy; whereas many beleevers babes never live to be holy by holy education.

Others expound it thus, in reference to that inhibited ſeparation, verſe 12, 13. that if you ſtay together, the children will bee counted legitimate, but if you part, they will be accounted baſtards. This is far-fetcht, nor de jure, in caſes of lawfull divorce for adultery, ought the children begot of the divorced Wife in lawfull wedlock before her adulterous pranks, and divorce for it, bee counted baſtards.

SECT. IV.

BUt there are three other Expoſitions of this clauſe, which are more uſually urged, and pleaded by oppoſites to Infants federall holineſſe.

Firſt, ſome make this clauſe [Elſe your children, &c.] to be a reaſon inforcing that inhibition, verſe 12, 13. and not of the ſanctifying of the infidell ſpouſe in the other. Thus, if you divorce your yokefellows, you muſt put away your children alſo, as they did, Ezra 10. 44. And Hen. Denne maketh the meaning of your children are holy, to be the ſame with the unbeleeving husband or wife is ſanctified, p. 8ſcil. They are not to be put away. Whereas the immediate connection of this clauſe to that paſſage, verſ. 14. in way of arguing; and not to verſ. 12, 13. ſheweth it to be a reaſon of the former, not of the other in verſ. 12, 13. The caſe of putting away came in queſtion, but as a ſuppoſed remedy of pollution of conſcience by conjugall communion: the unlawfulneſſe of which remedy, being ſo expreſly mentioned, verſ. 12. 13. and confirmed by foure reaſons, verſ. 14, 15, 16, 17. there needed no more weight put there. But ſince the feare of pollution of conſcience, did occaſion that caſe, verſ. 12, 13. and that feare is ſo fully taken off in the firſt of the 4 reaſons againſt ſuch putting away mentioned in the former part of the 14 verſ. meet it was to ſtrengthen that reaſon in eſpeciall: which ſo directly met with the bottome ſcruple, as it was in this very clauſe, Elſe, &c. but now, &c. And to imagine this to bee the Apoſtles inference: If you put away husbands or wives, you muſt put away children too, &c. ſuppoſeth an Apoſtle to reaſon impertinently and unſoundly, ſince in the caſe of divorce of ſpouſes, it doth not neceſſarily follow, that the children begotten of them bee alſo put away.

For 1. even in lawfull divorces for adultery, no word of the enjoyning childrens being put away, Matth. 19. & Chap. 5. nor was it ſo practiced: the husband need not own his wives baſtard indeed, as his other children, but muſt own thoſe begotten of his own wife before her divorce, Deut. 21. 15, 16, 17. compared with Chap. 24. 1.

2. The children lawfully begot, partaking of the believing parent as well as Pagan; Reaſon will plead as ſtrongly with nature, and more ſtrongly with grace in the divorcing party, putting away the other when deſirous to abide, verſe 12, 13. that the children are rather to be detained by the beleeving party, as ſuppoſe the father, &c. for higher and holyer ends, then by putting them away to hazard their owne childrens ſoules welfare.

3. If there had been any weight in their feare of pollution, by retaining the infidell yoke-fellow, yet no colour of pretence of pollution of conſcience, by retaining their little ones; whom they might better ſeaſon with their owne Chriſtianiſme, then feare being leavened by their paganiſme, or the like. There needed not therefore any ſuch ſuppoſed remedy of pollution, by removing their children alſo. As for that parallelling of that, Ezra 10 44. with this caſe, it is very unſuitable; That was a caſe of perſons inchurched having an expreſſe prohibition to the contrary, not p. 9to joyne with ſuch, as perſons betwixt whom and themſelves, there was a partition wall yet doing it. This is a caſe of perſons, all of one ſort Pagan, when firſt married, and under no ſuch prohibition; onelyonly after they were married one partie embraceth the faith: now to make the intervening of grace as a ſole occaſion of ſuch breakings of families in pieces were ſad and ſcandalous: yet to ſuppoſe Pagans to be under ſuch a prohibition, as the Jewes to match with Pagans, had been to make them wholly prohibited marriage at all.

2. Others expound it onelyonly of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children in reference to the lawfulneſſe or unlawfulneſſe of the ſpouſes, ſome, as I. S. conſider the beleeving ſpouſe, as ſuch, in both effects of the ſpouſe being ſanctified unto them, and the childrens being holy, or lawfull producing, Tit. 1. 15. To the pure all things are pure, or lawfull uſe, as hee expounds it. Others of whom Beza ſpeaketh in his notes upon 1 Cor. 7. extend it to the children of both parents Infidell: that they are not ſpurious, but legitimate, which he refuteth from the ſuppoſition of the Apoſtle. For wherefore, ſaith Beza, ſhould hee diſcourſe of baſtards, or of both ſpouſes Infidell? which makes me the more wonder at Beza as quoted by ſome for matrimoniall ſanctitie, as here underſtood, if taken of civill ſanctitie or lawfulneſſe, Beza profeſſedly diſclaimes it, for ſaith hee, the Apoſtle diſcourſeth not of civill policy, but touching conſcience. And I grant, ſaith he, that the marriage of Infidels is civilly lawfull: It's not fornication before God. But what is this to Pauls ſcope, diſcourſing touching conſcience? and Beza profeſſedly argueth againſt any ſuppoſall, that becauſe the beleeving party is not mentioned, Verſ. 14. yet that therefore not underſtood in the preſent caſe as ſuch, as ſome expound this place, which yeeld that he ſpeaketh of perſons, one a beleever, the other infidell, but ſay, that in this caſe, hee conſiders not the perſon as a beleever, but as any other lawfull man or wife. This Beza by Argument refuteth. C. B. hee ſeemeth to propend to this later expoſition, that the Apoſtle conſiders them not here, as one a beleever, the other not, but meerly as husband and wife.

As for the conjecture of I. S. it hath already appeared, that, Tit. 1. 15. intends more then a bare lawfull uſe, common to all Infidels, as the oppoſition ſheweth. [But to the unbeleeving is nothing pure when yet many things are lawfull. And ſo here, when the Apoſtle ſpeakes of perſons as ſuch, one whereof is a beleever, in, p. 10and to whom the other is ſanctified, hee intends more then a bare lawfull husband or wife to them; and for their children alſo more then civilly legitimate. And it were too abſurd in an Apoſtle, to lay that for a cauſe of legitimacy which is not: But Gods ordinance rather, not faith, Pagans marriages being as lawfull as Chriſtians. And it were abſurd to reaſon: That unleſſe one bee a beleever, the children are baſtards, when the children of each man and wife, Pagan or Chriſtian, are as Adam and Eve, which herein were radically conſidered in reference to all ſuch like couples, ſuch whoſe children are a ſeed of God, or of his inſtitution, in generall approbation, as Mal. 2. 15. truly proveth. This was unheard of doctrin, Heb. 13. 14. and tended rather to deſtruction in all families, where ſuch doctrine ſhould come, then to peace. And if there had been any ground of ſcruple in theſe caſes of the Corinthians conſidered onelyonly as man and wife, what need they trouble Apoſtles with ſuch civill caſes? or what hath Chriſt and his Diſciples; as ſuch, to doe in civill matters? Luk. 12. 2 Tim. 2. The Apoſtles would not bee cumbred with Table-ſervice, Act. 6. 4. much leſſe with the civill law intricacies.

And whereas Mal. 2. 15. is urged as a proofe by ſome; it proveth that which was not queſtioned, ſcil. legitimacy of children of any lawfull man and wife, but diſproveth ſuch a Tenet, that unleſſe the couples bee one or both Inchurched beleevers as were theſe, 1 Cor. 7. 14. their children are not a ſeed of God, a legitimate ſeed. In that God eyed all the ſonnes and daughters of Adam and Eve, as conjugally united in the ſame common reference, as of duties in common, of love, care, &c. in the husband and ſubjection in the wife, and fidelitie in both; ſo in this fruit of ſuch lawfull conjugall fellowſhip, legitimacy of children; wherein both parties, as lawfull man and wife, have equall ſhare, without any ſuch peculiar beleeving Covenant and Church reſpect, as any Inſtrumentall cauſe thereof, whereas the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of a caſe of holineſſe of children, ariſing from ſome peculiar conſideration of ſome one parent and not the other, or if of both, yet not of both in that common way of meere civill lawfulneſſe of matrimony, but with peculiar reference to an inſtrumentall cauſe of an higher nature.

And ſo wee come to the other opinion, to which anſwer is made, in the ſixth and ſeventh conſiderations before mentioned: as the Apoſtle ſpeakes of Inchurched parents, at leaſt one of them, ſo he conſidereth them at leaſt (as) Eccleſiaſticall beleevers, viſibly in p. 11Covenant with God & his people, and holding forth faith in God, and in his Covenant, (as) beleeving brethren and ſiſters, and not barely as lawfull man and wife, as the context and proofes formerly urged declare. But let us heare the reaſons, why meant of them as man and wife, and not as beleevers in the caſe propounded.

Obj. 1. When the Infidell party is ſpoken of, he is named, and ſo is not the beleeving party, but is barely mentioned under the common name of man or wife; therefore, ſo to bee conſidered in the caſe there ſpoken to.

An. This hath been formerly anſwered. That as much is expreſſed in that caſe, Verſ. 16. man and wife onelyonly named, but it were abſurd to reaſon, that therefore in that caſe there mentioned, they are conſidered as man and wife, not as beleeving: nor in that concealing of the word beleeving, in the mention of the beleeving partie, is it ſaid, the wife or husband is ſanctified, in, or to, or by, the unbeleeving partie, as if they as ſuch, had an influence in this ſanctifiedneſſe of the other ſpouſe, but ſtill the phraſe is rather thus, the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified in, or to, or by the wife, and the unbeleeving wife by the husband, evidently pointing out the wife or husband, as the ſubject of that ſanctifiedneſſe, which in the other is an effect, and applyed to them as the object.

Obj. 2. The word foreign [hath been ſanctified] in the preterperfect tenſe twiſe repeated, therefore probably relating to their eſtate, when both were unbeleevers.

Anſ. He repeateth the word twice, as being to ſpeake of the unbeleeving parties, in ſome couples the husband, in others the wife: as ſanctified in, unto, or by the other parties beleeving: for, as ſuch, the wife or husband, to, or by whom the Infidell partie is ſanctified, are conſidered, (as before proved) now, in the preter-perfect tenſe, ſuch were ſo ſanctified, not whilſt both unbeleevers: ſince not then an unbeleever ſanctified to a wife beleeving, but in reference to paſt time, ſince their comming to the faith, and to the Church-eſtate, which was ſome good ſpace of time as in which many had ſundry children.

Obj. 3. The ſame word is uſed in 1 Tim. 4. 5. concerning the creatures, being lawfull to uſe: that therefore is the ſenſe here.

Anſ. If that had meant onelyonly lawfulneſſe of uſe, for the way there mentioned, as in ſome other Scriptures ſome ſuch uſe of the Greek word here uſed, may be found; yet it's not therefore conſequent, p. 12that here, as it is circumſtantiated, it muſt be ſo meant likewiſe. But as for the place in Timothy, the confirmation it yeelds to this text, is rather for us then againſt us; ſince intending a way of the creatures becomming not barely lawfull to uſe, as it is to others, which makes no improvement of the word of Covenant as well as command in prayer, but of a way of a holy uſe to ſuch as take that holy courſe for that end. And even ſo it is here, of which more anon. As much is mentioned in another phraſe to like purpoſe, Tit. 1. 15. but the oppoſition to unbeleeving perſons ſheweth, that albeit many things are lawfull to them, yet is nothing pure, as it is to the Saints, namely in a preter-naturall way holy to their uſe.

Obj. 4. But this is moſt pertinent to the Apoſtles ſcope, of encouraging to abide together.

Anſ. The Apoſtles ſcope is not to ſpeake to a caſe of civill lawfulneſſe of ſuch abode, then indeed it had been lawfull to have ſpoken in that ſenſe: but to a caſe of perſons troubled in conſcience about pollution, even by a communion which out of doubt was amongſt all, and ſo to them civilly lawfull, Heb. 13. 4. This therefore were but to beate the ayre to tell them for ſatisfaction to their troubled conſcience, of a matter of which they never doubted: and of which, if never ſo well aſſured by what they knew, now or before, yet ſtill their wound is not healed, but might bleed and feſter for all that, in as much as many things lawfull, in reſpect of civill uſe amongſt men, yet are not alwayes ſuch things, by the uſe whereof the Saints may not bee in conſcience polluted, as in the caſe of divorce of old tolerated.

Obj. 5. Hee ſpeaketh of things not as contingent, and poſſibly never likely to be, but of things certaine in order to effects neceſſarily following, and ſo of civill lawfulneſſe of ſpouſes, a certaine effect of the ordinance of marriage.

Anſ. And ſo is the ſanctifiedneſſe of a lawfull ſpouſe as certaine a ſequell in reference to the other, making improvement of the word of Gods covenant as well as commandement by faith in prayer, 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5.

Repl. Yea, but it's not ſo certaine a ſequell, that the holineſſe of children ſhould follow from that ſpirituall condition and conſideration of the parent, as it's neceſſary it ſhould, if the Apoſtles reaſoning hold good from the cauſe to the effect: ſince, then it muſt neceſſarily follow, or elſe hee reaſons impertinently: nor will it p. 13reach the trouble of ſuch, which never had, nor it may bee through age or other naturall inabilitie might never have children: or how could their faith ſanctifie their conjugall communion in reference to children?

Anſw. The Apoſtle reaſons from cauſe to effect, ex natura rei, and not barely, ex natura eventus rei. It doth not follow that ſuch a cauſe is not in its nature a cauſe of ſuch an effect, or that one may not pertinently reaſon from the cauſe to the effect, becauſe that ſometimes a ſecond cauſe may bee ſuſpended in its full operation, either by the firſt over-ruling cauſe, or by ſecondary impediments.

But to come to the matter propounded. We will ſuppoſe it meant of matrimony, which as Gods ordinance is a certaine cauſe as of legitimacy of the husband to marriage uſe, ſo of the children begotten in, and by marriage fellowſhip. This you will ſay will ſatisfie all ſides. But will it indeed? Is it certaine, all married people ſhould have children? Is it not a very contingent effect? how can you reaſon from cauſe to effect rationally? Are not many married perſons paſt having of children by each other? or naturally diſabled from generation? what ſatisfaction is it to ſuch perſons, to tell them of an effect ſo unlikely, and naturally ſo unpoſſible? All will anſwer here, yea, but in the nature of the ordinance, it is ſuch a cauſe tending by Gods appointment to ſuch an effect: and ex hypotheſi, ſuppoſing the object to bee qualified with that effect of legitimacy, ſcil. children actually begotten by marriage fellowſhip, then the effect is not contingent, but alwayes followeth. And all married perſons may bee incouraged to their condition, in that the ordinance hath not influence alone upon the ſpouſes in reference to their marriage-fellowſhip, but upon ſuch children as God pleaſeth to beſtow upon married perſons, for that both became lawfull, and not unlawfull. As much ſay I in this caſe. That a faithfull man in covenant with God and his Saints, hee by improvement of Gods word, &c. hath this certaine to him, and for his incouragement, whether hee ſtand in relation to a ſpouſe onelyonly, and have yet no children, yet hee hath a ſanctified uſe of his ſpouſe: or if God make his ſpouſe fruitfull, hee hath a ſanctified uſe of her, yet further in a reference to any child by her, to which hee ſtands in relation as a parent; That as another effect of the covenant improved, and of faith alſo therein, hee hath this priviledge of a Federall and Eccleſiaſticall condition of his child, p. 14and this is a comfortable incouragement to all ſuch perſons, that there is ſuch an influence of the word of God improved by faith, that as marriage-uſe is ſanctified by it: ſo children begotten in marriage are Eccleſiaſtically and Federally holy; when the Apoſtle ſaith, All things are pure to the pure, Tit. 1. and every creature is ſanctified by the word and prayer, 1 Tim. 4. hee doth not thereby weaken or falſifie the ground-worke from cauſe to effect, or weaken their comfort thence; becauſe it may bee ſaid, it is very contingent, yea impoſſible, that one beleever ſhould have all things or creatures, &c. but it ſufficeth ex hypotheſi, what ever hee hath more or leſſe, its pure to him: And if hee have any thing more, which he had not, that then it becomes actually pure to him, ſo in this caſe: Therefore the Apoſtle doth not reaſon thus, elſe you ſhould have no children, but ſuppoſing you have children, it would follow they were elſe uncleane, but now they are holy.

Obj. 6. But hee ſpeakes of an holineſſe incident to an unbeleever, remaining an unbeleever, and therefore of a civill holineſſe?

Anſ. When the Apoſtle ſaith, every thing is ſanctified by the word, &c. 1 Tim. 4. and Tit. 1. 15. All things are pure to the pure, will any ſay that hee ſpeakes of a puritie meerly civill and naturall in reference unto the pure? ſay an Indian ſervant, yea ſay a beaſt, to whom this puritie is attributed, remaine Heathen or irrationall, in themſelves, and are civilly pure onelyonly to the unbeleeving, yet they are in a more peculiar and ſpirituall reſpect ſaid to bee pure to the pure, elſe why is there put ſuch a diſtinction between them therein, Tit. 1. 15? It is in a peculiar way and ſenſe that the creatures 1 Tim. 4. and the Infidell ſpouſe, 1 Cor. 7. are ſanctified to the faithfull.

Obj. 7. Yea, but he ſpeakes of an unbeleever, as a joynt cauſe of the childrens holineſſe, therefore that is but civill holineſſe or legitimacy.

Anſ. Hee is a joynt cauſe of the child properly: but of the child thus priviledged, hee is not any proper cauſe, as an unbeleever, but as an unbeleever ſanctified to his beleeving ſpouſe.

3. I. S. hath ſome further expreſſion tending to the ſame end, that the children are holy to uſe, as are other creatures to the Saints, and concludeth, that the holineſſe of the parent, and child is the ſame in nature, ſcil. the holineſſe of the creature, in a naturall, not in any ſpirituall reſpect. That is, they are made p. 15lawfull to uſe, as before he ſpake when he ſhewed in what ſenſe the husband was ſanctified, ſcil. made lawfull to uſe, or as others ſay, as C. B. doth; That children in this Text are not holy, with any holineſſe diſtinct from Idolaters, as appeareth in the repetition of the word ſanctified, and that holineſſe, hee afterwards ſaith, it is civill holineſſe.

Anſ. Albeit this hath been in ſubſtance objected before, and anſwered, yet let me give a diſtinct anſwer to it.

1. Then, I deny that the ſame word uſed touching the parents, is repeated in mention of the children, if wee ſpeake Grammatically. Yea, but they are of the ſame roote, one the verbe, the other the noune. And what then? is there no difference in the uſe of the words? non ſequitur. Aquinas is right in that: touching the meaning of words ſaith hee, non tam attendendum eſt, à quo, quam ad quid. Wee muſt not ſo much heed the roote whence they are derived, as the uſe to which in common ſpeeches they are applied. Sanctified in, or to a perſon, is one thing, and holy is another. Afflictions, perſecutions, yea the falls of the Saints are ſanctified to them, but they are not holy. It's Pauls wont when intending that uſe of the word ſanctified either expreſly or implicitly, to mention to whoſe uſe the perſon or thing is ſanctified: As here, twice in this verſe, … ſanctified to the husband, and to the wife, ſo Tit. 1. 15. To the pure, all things are pure, and 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5. mentioning prayer, he noteth out Gods ſuppliants, &c. to whom the cretures are ſanctified. But here is no mention to whoſe uſe the children are holy: yea in that holy for civill uſe, they are holy to the infidel parent as well as to the beleever, he may make a lawfull uſe of his child: yet being unbeleeving, the child is not ſanctified to his uſe, as Tit. 1. 15. ſheweth.

2. Suppoſe it of an holy or ſanctified uſe of the children ſtrictly taken, as incommunicable to others then to Saints for uſe: yet why rather your children holy, then others, then other Pagans children? ſince to the members of Corinth, the Pagan Cities children might be ſaid holy for uſe, and they might make a holy uſe of them many wayes in prayer, &c. Yea, why not inſtancing as well as any other creature, as holy, thus, as well as the children of the members of Corinth Church?

Obj. It was more ſuitable to inſtance in children, being to prove, that the Infidell parents were thus ſanctified in their beleeving parents.

p. 16Anſ. Yea, but if that bee the queſtion, it is not one particular inſtance like it would prove the ſame: unleſſe an induction of more particulars: that the husband is thus ſanctified: for ſo are the children, ſo are ſuch and ſuch things, &c. therefore ſo is the Infidell huſband, or wife to the beleeving party.

SECT. V.

HAving thus removed and cleared ſuch miſtakes in the expounding this Text, we come now to what I conceive to take up the full meaning of what is ſaid of theſe children of the body of the Corinthian-Church-members, that they are holy. Some take it of Federall holineſſe, ſome of Eccleſiaſticall and Church-holineſſe: I would exclude neither: It being ſpoken of the children of parents in ſuch ſort in the Covenant of Grace, as it is inveſted with Church-Covenant alſo, explicit or implicite, and in the ſame reſpect the children are Federally holy, as the Covenant of Grace is cloathed with Church-Covenant in a Politicall viſible Church-way.

And thus I conceive of the Apoſtles inference and argument [elſe your children were uncleane, but now they are holy] Scilicet, That unleſſe your Intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, which you hold forth, and your faith therein, which you in a Church-way profeſſe, have ſo much influence upon your yokefellowes, as to ſanctifie them in, and to, your conjugall uſe: But that there be invaliditie and privation of influence thereof, in that your conjugall relation; then muſt you be as well to ſeeke of any validitie thereof, in another relation alſo: ſcil. in your parentall relation to your children: even there alſo, ſhall the covenant, and faith have no influence unto ſuch an effect of holineſſe of your children. If they produce not ſuch an effect in the former, by which yet the Infidell partie have no perſonall priviledge, how will they produce the later, by which children have according to you an unqueſtioned perſonall priviledge, that they are holy? hee that will queſtion, or caſt off the force of ſuch inſtruments influences in one thing, hee by the ſame diſtemper, will caſt the ſame off in another. Yea, if it be groundedly and really for that the Covenant of Grace which beleevers lay hold of together with their faith therein, have no efficacy in one condition, or relation, it is as well true in another, only reſerving the diverſitie of influences, as diverſly elicited or expreſſed. If they are not effectuall to produce ſomething peculiar to p. 17beleevers in a conjugall relation differing from all Pagan ſpouſes, they will neither produce any thing peculiar to them in a parentall relation to their children. But as your ſpouſes ſhall bee to you as all other pagan ſpouſes, in common to each other: meerely lawfull to uſe, ſo your children, with, and to you ſhall be in your parentall relation, but as pagan children are uncleane or profane, which to all were abſurd: But now, rather they are holy; namely, Federally, and not as other Pagans children, profane. Now, when I mention in this expoſition the Covenant, as in part having ſome influence in both relations, as well as faith, I doe it, as not daring to ſever faith from the word of faith, which even giveth ſtrength to faith it ſelfe: And beſides, God having made a Covenant with Abraham, and with his ſpirituall ſeed in their Generations, as well as with the Jewes: And that in ſuch ſort alſo, as with reſpect to Church eſtate, and as inveſted with Church-Covenant, hence it is, that the [meere] Infidelitie of a Pagan ſpouſe abiding Pagan when the other comes to the faith, ſhall not hinder the courſe and force of Gods Covenant to In-Churched beleevers ſeed, witneſſe the example both of the ſon of Moſes, Exod. 4. 24. &c. and of Eunice, Act. 16. 1, 2, 3. even many perſonall ſinnes of the Saints hinder it not, much leſſe doe other perſonall ſinnes evacuate the ſame.

Hence, ſo long as this Covenant-Intereſt holdeth in force, that either it be not rejected by the parents, as it was by thoſe Jewes Rom. 11. 20. or that they be not juſtly, for covenant breaches diſpoyled of Church benefit by it by ſome Church-cenſure, ſo long the covenant is Eccleſiaſtically of force to the childrens federall & Church-eſtate. So in the caſe of thoſe Idolatrous Church-members, being not diſcovenanted, and diſcharged by Gods hand, or by Eccleſiaſticall authoritie, their children were federall, and Church-ſeed, the Churches children borne by her unto God, Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21, 23. compared. That holy Covenant produceth that reſpect of holy perſons, Dan. 8. 24. compared with 11. 28. 30. 32. Hence the Covenant and Church-eſtate of Covenant and In-churched parents, is firſtly the parents priviledge, and ſo to bee conſidered. Hence alſo I conclude then that the little ones of viſible beleeving and In-churched parents, ſuch as theſe mentioned in the Text were, 1 Cor. 1. 1, 2. with 1. and 14. they are Federally and Eccleſiaſtically holy. In this ſenſe the word holy is frequently uſed, yea, of many perſons, which were neither inherently holy, nor p. 18imputatively holy in a ſtrict ſenſe, no nor ſo much outwardly holy in point of lively expreſſions of perſonall holineſſe, yet are called holy, ſcil. Eccleſiaſtically, and in externall reſpect to the Covenant, and that not a Covenant of workes, for that calleth no ſinners holy, nor by any meere ceremoniall holineſſe, but by vertue of Abrahams Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. with Ezra 9. 2. They are called the holy ſeed, and the ſame phraſe in the ſame Covenant and Church reſpect, is in Scripture frequently uſed, with reſpect to ſuch Infants, the holy people deſtroyed by Antiochus, Dan. 8. 24. were the Jewiſh children as well as growne perſons. The children were a part, and a ſpeciall part, of that choſen, beloved, and people redeemed from Egypt, which were called holy. Hence both Deut. 14. 2. and 26. 18, 19. and 28. 2. 9. ſpeaking of the whole people as holy: it is in the phraſes, thou, thee, loved and eſtabliſhed. Thee, that thou mayſt bee an holy people, &c. Adoption belongeth to the little ones as did the promiſes, as well as to the reſt of Pauls kindred, Rom. 9. 4. They were children of the Church, and borne to God, as husband to the Covenant Church, Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21. 23. compared with Jer. 2. 2. & 3. 1. and Eſa. 54. 4, 5. nor was this as I intimated a ceremoniall matter, no more then either Abrahams Covenant was with ſome which oppoſe us confeſſe did belong in ſpeciall ſort to the Jewes, and that Covenant was the very Covenant of Grace, and therefore that did by this grant in ſpeciall wiſe belong to them, nor was it more ceremoniall, then was that, Deut. 30. 6. 11, 12, 13, 14. which the Apoſtle maketh the very doctrine of faith, which they preached, as by comparing that with Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. wee ſhall God willing declare. This was not as the ceremonies againſt them, but for the good of them and theirs, and avowed by the Apoſtles after Chriſts aſcenſion, Act. 2. 38, 39. of which afterwards. And as 1 Pet. 2. 9. which Interpreters agree relateth to Exod. 19. 6. ſpoken of them not as an inviſible Church, but viſible, ſuch as had officers over them, which the inviſible Church, as ſuch hath not. For ſuppoſing a company with Church-officers, they are now not an inviſible but viſible C…us, ſee, 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. and 4. 10, 11. hee calleth them elected; ſuch they were to the judgement of charitie and in reſpect of viſibilitie; ſo that viſible Church of Babylon, hee calleth it elected, 1 Pet. 5. 13. yet were there in that viſible Church as in others, ſome tares, and veſſels of diſhonour. Some things mentioned in Peter, of their obedience, p. 19exerciſe of faith, &c. are not actually appliable to Infants, yet that hinders not, but that Infants are intended, in that Inchurched part of the 10. Tribes, as Calvin and Ames thinke, in reference to James 1. 1. and Hoſ. 1. 10. or in that In-churched part of the Gentiles, as Oecumenius, Aretius, &c. thinke, ſince in Exod. 19. 6. to which this place is to bee referred, this condition of that Covenant-priviledge, ſcil. Actually and perſonally to keepe Gods Covenant and to obey his voyce indeed, Exod. 19. 5. was applyable onelyonly to the growne part, yet the Infant part were in that account of an holy people, &c. and as much may bee conceived of 1 Pet. 2. 9.

SECT. VI.

AGainſt what is uſually brought from 1 Cor. 7. 14. That is objected, that children of parents, not ſanctified by faith, in their matrimoniall fellowſhip, as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Thamar, Jepthah of Gilead, and many others, were within the Covenant both of ſaving grace, and Church-priviledge. Therefore faith ſanctifying of the uſe of the marriage bed, is not ſuch a cauſe of ſanctifying of the children Federally and Eccleſiaſtically, ſo as that unleſſe that bee, the children are uncleane in that reſpect.

Anſ. This objection may ſeeme to make a faire flouriſh againſt ſuch as give the Apoſtles meaning, as onelyonly ſuch. But mee it hurts not, who make the maine ſpring of the holineſſe of the children, not to be the ſanctifying of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow to the beleeving, but the grace of the Covenant to the beleever, and his ſeed; even the ſanctification of the beleeving yoke-fellow ſpringeth from the grace of the Covenant, ſanctifying beleevers ſeed, by vertue whereof, the infidelitie of the yoke-fellow, becomes no overpowering let thereunto, and ſo in part by vertue of that Covenant, as well as faith in it, ſuch a yoke-fellow is ſanctified ſo farre forth, nor is the Apoſtles influence from the cauſe to the effect of that communion, but rather from a like effect of the Covenant and faith in another relation of a beleever, as a parent to children, unto that in that relation of an yoke-fellow: that if the influence of the Covenant and faith bee wholly denyed in the one, it may well bee wholly denyed in the other, and that hee makes account was an abſurditie in the ſight of all.

Concerning the aſſertion, that Baſtards were Intereſted in the Covenant of ſaving grace, I will not now diſpute it, but reaſon p. 20ex ſuppoſitis. That Covenant intereſt of thoſe baſtard-Infants, it was not from the parents faith ſanctifying of that communion: Whence was it? It could not be from any actuall faith of the babes, they had it not; it was ſurely from the force of Abrahams Covenant, at leaſt as inveſted with Church-Covenant, from which the parents being not cut off by Gods hand, nor caſt out by the Churches power; their Covenant relation ſtill ſtood ſo far in force, that is, they were intereſſed externally therein and ſo their ſeed with them: and thus in foro Eccleſiae, the force of the Covenant took off even that impediment according to that poſition of the objectors; and how much more doth the ſame force of the Covenant take off any impediment of a Pagan parents infidelitie, in the Texts caſe of lawfull conjugall followſhip, ſo that ſuch children of a Gentile Corinthian Church-members, have an intereſt at leaſt externall in the ſaving Covenant of Grace and Church-priviledge.

Obj. Whether the parents beleeve or not, the children may bee in the Covenant, and regenerate, therefore that's no cauſe thereof.

Anſ. Wee ſpeake not of the inherent holineſſe of the child, as regenerate, that is, immediatly from God, but of holineſſe Federall and Eccleſiaſticall, which may bee applyable to perſons unregenerate, as Pſal. 50. 5. 16. 17. Of which more afterwards. The parents viſibly beleeving and Inchurched, are inſtrumentall cauſes of that holineſſe of their children, yea whether beleevers in veritie, or onelyonly viſibilitie. It ſufficeth thereunto, nor are little ones thus in Covenant with God and his Church, without either the viſibilitie of faith in the parents paſt or preſent: perſonall holineſſe conſiſteth not with living in knowne ſinnes, but Federall holineſſe may, Ezek. 16.

Obj. The Text is a reaſon of the queſtion, which was not about Federall holineſſe, but living together.

Anſ. The former part of the Text is a reaſon of that, and none pleades for the Infidell ſpouſes Federall holineſſe, but the latter part is a confirmation of that reaſon from another ground. And Mr. B. knoweth in proofe of concluſions, we take divers mediums.

Obj. Yea, but if the child bee Federally holy, then the Infidell wife is holy, with covenant ſanctification?

Anſ. It followeth not. The word ſanctified in and to another, and being holy, differ and ſignifie different things, as before ſaid.

Obj. If Federally holy, then Abrahams ſeed, and then they have faith, Gal. 3.

p. 21Anſ. Wee ſhall in due place I hope prove, that they are Abrahams ſeed without actuall perſonall faith of their owne, and ſo as Abrahams ſeed federally holy.

Obj. The Apoſtle ſpeakes of an outward holineſſe common to reprobates alſo, Heb. 9. 15. and not of holineſſe knowne to the Church, for which perſons ought to bee baptized, and it's either inward holineſſe which the Church deales not with, or outward, of which Baptiſme is not a ſigne.

Anſ. Outward holineſſe, ſcil. that which is viſible to the Church, is ſeal'd in Baptiſme. The Church deales not with inward holineſſe, therefore with outward, unleſſe there is an holineſſe which is neither inviſible nor viſible, Hebr. 9. is of Ceremoniall holineſſe; This of Federall and Church-holineſſe, knowne to the Church, and holineſſe viſible or knowne to the Church is common to Reprobates, unleſſe any will ſay the Churches judgement erres not, and confound viſibilitie, and infallibilitie.