Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 76

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 76

p. 611SECT. LXXVI. My sense of matrimonial holiness▪ 1 Cor. 7.14. is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions, Vindic. Faed. ch. 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exircit. ch. 7.

MR. Bl. ch. 39. avoucheth, still his sense of federal holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. I proceed to view what he saith. Sect. 1. he sets down the Apostles resolution and the reason of it rightly, which because it will tend much to the clearing of the sense which I give, I shall here transcribe it. Let him not put her away, let her not leave him, unbelief breaks not the marriage bond, …enders it not a nullity, Religion being not of the substance of marriage. But what he saith, that their scruple and ground of their fear was the condition of their issue, lest that they should not be reckoned with the Saints, but of the fellowship of the unclean Gentiles, is fictitious. For the resolution of it rightly given before by Mr. Bl. himself, shews that their scruple arose not from fear of their childrens condition, but the p. 612nullity of their marriage, or unlawfulness of continuing in it by reason of the unbelief of the one party; else the Apostle had not made his resolution apposite to the removing their scruple. Yea, Mr. Bls. own speech is against his own conceit, when he saith, Reason is strong for this, for they well knew, as it is with the parent, so it is with the child for Church state and condition, being a priviledge communicable and descendable from parent to child. If the parent were without, and of the Gentiles, the child was ever such; and in case they 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 s…ain would lie upon them, they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent. In a like case it had been so determined, Ezra 10.3. For if they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church-state, they knew that the believing parent being a Churchmember, notwithstanding the yokefellows unbelief, their children were Churchmembers, and so made no scruple of that, nor did Paul, or need he to resolve that scrup…e about their childrens condition. Yea, the very form of the Apostles reasoning, else were your children unclean, doth plainly import, that they took the uncleanness of their children as an absurdity deprehended by them, and the contrary out of doubt; as when, 1 Cor. 15.29. the Apostle saith, Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? he supposeth they took it for an absurdity, and the contrary out of doubt, that they that are baptized for the dead do it in vain. And though that the parents being divided they might fear that the issue would follow the worser part, a slain would lie upon them, yet that this stain should be in respect of their Churchstate, could not be, if they well knew, as Mr. Bl. saith, as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Churchstate, their own state in the Church being manifest and certain. That the case of the Corinthians and those, Ezra 10.3. is not like, is shewed in the first part of this Review, sect. 17, 18. and will come into further consideration in that which follows.

What Mr. Bl. adds, That the Apostle tels them, that the unbelieving party doth not (as they fear) defile the issue, but is sanctified as to issue by the believer, is a meer fiction. For the Apostle onelyonly tels them they did not defile each other, but were sanctified to each other, by reason of their marriage state, not the faith of one party. And it is as false, that by reason of the parents faith the Apostle tels them the child is not reckoned with the unbelieving parent who is a Gentile, or that by unclean is meant a sinner of the Gentiles, for the child of both parents Gentile believers is still a Gentile; and if unclean be a sinner of the Gentiles, by holy should be meant a Jew by nature, which is a ridiculous conceit of Mr. Bls. as if the parent being a believer, the child were a Jew by nature, and not a sinner of the Gentiles. What he adds, that by believer in that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is meant a professor of the true faith, is vain, when the word believer is not used in that v. or any v. of that Chapter about that matter, nor in that sense there. If to be sanctified, 1 Cor. 7.14. be not to be set apart for God, as Mr. Bl. determines, then the term sanctified is not used in the common if not onelyonly use of the word in Scripture and prophane p. 613writers, and by him conceived here, as Mr. B. asserts Plain Script. proof, &c. part. 1. ch. 29. p. 81.

In answer to the 2d. sect. of the 39th. ch. of Mr. Bls. vindic faed. I say first, that I do not yeild that the Corinthians had any scruple at all about their issue. 2. That my waving the examining of the occasion of the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 17.12, 13, 14. was not because of any strength I found in Mr. Bls. allegations, but because I conceived neither of our opinions any other then a conjecture, and therefore the thing not material, nor in the framing my postscript had I time enough to do what I did after, not out of a mind to quarrel, but to shew the invalidity of Mr. Marshals 4…h. arg. for his interpretation from his conceit of the occasion of the doubt, to have been by reading the fact mentioned Ezr. 10.3. Mr. Bl. here endeavors to confirm his exceptions against my allegation of 1 Cor. 5.9. as the occasion of the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7.12. Yet replies nothing to my answer to the two first, but to the 3d. saith. 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 impossible for them to scruple one upon those words and not scruple all▪ Here is the wildest of fancies, when hee names four evils respective to civil social converse; they should startle at one (respective to their marriage society) and question no more. To which I answer, it is neither impossible nor very unlikely, much less a wild fancy to imagine it of them, that the Corinthians either did not scruple at using their covetous husbands, from 1 Cor. 5.9, 10. though they did their idolatrous, if they did not heed the explanation after added v. 10. but onelyonly the precept v. 9. and understood by fornicators idolaters, which they might easily do; or if they did heed the explanation, yet did not conceive the like reason of relinquishing covetous yoke-fellowes as idolatrous, which they might well do, finding precepts against marriages with idolaters, none against marriages with them that were onelyonly covetous and not idolaters, or they might not put the doubt of any other to the Apostle then the idolatrous, because there were none that had covetous yokefellows who were not idolaters, and they wovld put the case onelyonly about that which was the chief cause of their scruple, or because they could easily resolve themselves, that coveteousness and extortion from men do not so defile or are so inconsistent with marriage society as idolatry, and going a whoring from God, or they might put the case about the covetous as well as the idolaters, yet the Apostle resolve the one onelyonly expresly, because the resolving the one would resolve the other▪ for which and for other reasons which might occur, though not discernable now, they well either startle at one onelyonly, or not seek for resolution of any more, or if they did, yet Paul resolve no more. And this being understood, the Apostle needs not write to them as Mr. Bl. imagines he must, if my conjecture hold, and he took in every part of their scruple, though not what Mr. Bl. conceivs must be their scruple upon my conjecture.

p. 614And hereby Mr. Bls. replies of wonder of my thoughts, of the Apostles need of resolving both scruples, of the same evident ground of scruple concerning each, as one are plainly answered without reply to his taunting quips. The rest also is answered concerning B. Howson, Bunney, my Uncle Whately; for it goes upon this supposition, that if the Corinthians took occasion to doubt, from 1 Cor. 5.9. then they must doubt whether they must live with fornicating yoke-fellows, and the Apostle must resolve them, that if any brother have a wife that is a fornicator let him not put her away, which may not follow it by fornicators they understood onelyonly idolaters and so doubted of them onelyonly, or chiefly doubted of them, or resolving themselves otherwise propounded the doubt onelyonly of them, or the Apostle thought it needful onelyonly to resolve concerning them, knowing that they might from his resolution of them be resolved of the rest, especially if the words let him not put her away, be not a prohibition forbidding him to put her away, but as a permission allowing him not to put her away, which hath its likelihood. But of this enough, if not too much about a conjecture not very material. My words in my Postscript page 111. bare not Mr. Bl. in hand of any further answer then hath been given him, my censure of his absurd glosses, dictates, fl…rts incoherent, impertinent passages, little solid nervous disputing is delivered in language meet to express the truth.

If Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines in their Epistle used not vain crackings of Mr. Marshal, and Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter besides their misrepresentations of my Examen, I never met with any. Were their worth far greater then it is, and mine far less, I shall take liberty however my ingeny be questioned, as freely to censure Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines, as I did in this, if they shall hereafter by their names and big words disparage the truth as they did in this. Who of my nearest friends have told mee to my face, that they have been ashamed of that which I have written in my Apology, whose honesty and judgement Mr. Bl. hath seeen attested under my own hand, I do not yet know, nor by ghess yet imagine. I know I have had censures hard enough of persons afore this controversie arose taken for my friends, and have laid them more to heart then I hope I shall do hereafter, finding upon the Review of this Dispute how unequal they have been, and if that eminently learned man who observed that I had Donum impudentiae, were hee who wrote the second Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed at the end of his Confession of his faith, or any other did censure mee without well weighing my writings (as I have many reasons to conceive they do) as they are the more unrighteous, so they are deservedly the less regarded by mee. It was no impudence in mee to publish that men call on mee to answer Mr. Bl. or that his writing was commended when others had done it before. The most frivolous treatise that is, if it bee against me, yet it wants not some to magnifie it, Mr. Hussey's, Mr. Horns, Dr. Savages in Latin and others want not applauders. I discern the spirit of Paedobaptists even in those, whom I had taken to be moderate, judicious, friendly, yet in this point many of them shew neither equity to me, nor love to truth, nor judgement in according their opinion of Paedobaptism p. 615with their former and later principles and practises. But I shall wait till God awake men, and specially those who have been so forward to reform Discipline and Ceremonies, and have by solemn Covenant vowed to endeavour reformation according to Gods Word, that they may see from what they are fain. I go on.

Next Mr. Bl. speaks somewhat of the occasion of the doubt from Ezra 9.10. Let me premise, saith he, this as an undoubted truth, that these Corinthians had their scruples concerning their issue upon their marriage in this disparity. That which the Apostle sati…fies in his answer, that the Corinthians scrupled in their letter; This no man can deny, for he writes to give satisfaction, as is plain v. 1. to their letter cases: But we see in the text that he satisfies as scruples concerning themselves, so also concerning their issue.

To which I answer, the contrary is to me an undoubted truth, and so it was to Dr. Thomas Goodwin, whose reason with mine should have had some answer from Mr. Bl. As for his syllogism the major is not certain, sith the Apostle might give satisfaction on the by, about other things then the cases which they scrupled and wrote to him about. But the minor I do directly deny, and sith Mr. Bl. hath brought nothing to prove it, I slight it as a vain dictate.

As for Mr. Bls. refusing to determine peremptorily, that the occasion of the scruple was that, Ezra 9. & 10. it serves my turn to prove that no argument drawn from thence to conclude federal holiness of infants of believers is valid. I have often shewed how wee can imagine the Corinthians hit upon their scruple, and were affected with it without respect to the fact, Exra 9. & 10. and therefore need not again answer that question. Mr. Bls. not saying that the Israelites and the Corinthians case was wholly the same, tends to shew Mr. Marshals mistake, and the defect of his argument.

And for what Mr. Bl. observes that the Christian Corinthians were under the moral Law of Moses and it was not so easie for them to determine that the Command Deut. 7. was judicial, I grant it, and thence infer that notwithstanding the words 1 Cor. 10.15. yet they might not be so understanding in gathering consequences, or discerning the meaning of Scriptures, but that they might conceive otherwise then rational men usually do, contrary to what Mr. Bl. suggests of them sect. 3. Mr. Bl. having censured rather then refuted Dr. Goodwins opinion of the childrens real holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. He tels me my interpretation is first childish, to tell the Corinthians if their marriage society were adulterous, then their children were bastards, if their marriage were null children were illegitimate, this is too low a way of reasoning, such as every childe well knew before the Apostle told them. To which I answer, if it were so easily understood it was the fitter for the Apostles purpose to satisfie the tender consciences of doubting Christians, who are best satisfied with that which is obvious, and easily discernable, especially when the persons are women, and men of ordinary capacities. And therefore this way of arguing shewed not childishness in the Apostle but fatherly wisedome, and is a very good reason for my interpretation, not against it, sith it p. 616is acknowledged that the Apostles arguing as by me framed is right, and serves his purpose.

Secondly, saith Mr. Bl. It is incongruous to bring phrases fully answering the Churchstate and condition of either parents, believing and unbelieving (which in the Scripture is holy and unclean) and yet to understand them of holiness and uncleanness of another kinde of l…gitimation and bastardy, if they may be (as I think they never were) so called is incongruous: That these words fully answer the Churchstate of parents and the Churchstate and condition which the children derive from them, is plain in that parallel text Gal. 2.15. Jews by nature, that is holy by birth from believing parents, not sinners of the Gentiles, not unclean by birth from unbeleeving ancestours; so Mr. Cartwright on these words, in his answer to the Rhemists. If you will know what this holiness 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 f…rther understand what this uncleanness 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.

Answ What I said before I say still, without any jeer or disregard to Mr. Cartwright, that the conceit that 1 Cor. 7.14. and Gal. 2.15. are two full parallel Scriptures, is but a dream, there being neither agreement in scope, matter, words or sense between them. Not in scope. For 1 Cor. 7, 12, 13, 14. the Apostles scope is …o resolve a doubt about continuance of married persons in disparity of religion, Gal. 2.15. his scope is to determine by what we are justified, not in matter, for the one speaks of the sanctifying of husband and wife to each other, and the holiness or uncleanness of the children; the other of Jews and Gentils acding to their different national state, nor is there one word used Gal. 2.15. which is used 1 Cor, 7.14. nor can the sense be agreeing. For Jew by nature cannot be as much as holy 1 Cor. 7.14. because then the children of the Corinthians should bee Jews by nature, which was impossible, they being born of Gentile parents, for such were the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 12.2. Nor is Mr. Bls. sense Jew by nature, that is holy by birth from believing parents, any where else found in Scripture; Nor doth Jew by nature intimate their Churchstate, as if hee meant it thus; we who are members of the visible Church, or have this priviledge to bee in the Covenont of grace by nature, in that wee are born of believing parents. For they are said to bee Jews by nature by reason of their natural descent, without any respect to the faith or unbelief of their parents, even those whose parents were idolaters, as A…az, Manasseh, or any other of that line were Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, and the children of the most holy Proselites, yet were not Jews by nature: nor were they Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace, they were Jews by nature without respect to the Covenant of grace, for that was alwais to them who were believers, whether Jewes or Gentils, and the covenant whereby the Jews had priviledge was not the Covenant of Evangelical grace, but the Covenant of peculiar national blessinigs, but here the opposition to the Gentiles, and the occasion shews Jews to bee taken as a term appropriate to natural Jews by natural p. 617descent from Jacob in contradiinstction to Gentiles from other roots. If any ask who are meant by [we,] and why here is mentioned [Jews by nature,] and why they are opposed to the Gentiles, and they termed sinners, I answer, the words seem plainly to be a part of Pauls speech to Peter, and that by we are meant himself with Peter termed a Jew, v. 14. and other believers of the Circumcision, mentioned v. 12, 13. and the sense is, We though we are Jews by nature, or even we who are Jews by natural birth; and this mentioned, because they had the Law peculiarly given them, as Piscator in his Analysis, Nos quantumvis Judaei sumus, quibus nimirum lex peculiariter a Deo data est. Or as the opposite term [sinners of the Gentiles] intimates, knowers and keepers of the Law of Moses, and therefore if any, certainly much more then sinners of the Gentiles ▪ we should seek and expect to be justified by the Law; yet if we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Christ, and even we have believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, it is not equal that wee should as Peter did at Antioch, dissemble our liberty in Christ, compel the Gentiles to Judaize or keep the law for righteousness, and so not walke uprightly or rightfoote it according to the truth of the Gospel. Now the Gentiles are termed sinners in the sense, in which, in the ordinary acception among the Jewes, it was taken for men that observed not the law, opposed to the righteous, Matth. 9.13. Luke 15.1, 2, 7, 10. & 18.9, 13. and many more places: And in this sense it is taken, v. 17. we our selves also are sound sinners, that is, we our selves also are deprehended, convinced, or proved to be prophane breakers, or despise…s of the law: which the Gentiles did, and which I think is meant Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. and that Paul doth not any more reckon himself with them Ephes. 2.3. then he doth with them that are alive at Christs comming, opposite to them who are dead in Christ, 1 Thes. 4.17. though he use the first person plural in both; for I see not how that could stand with his speeches of himself, Acts 23, 1. Philip. 3.4▪ 5, 6. and therefore do conceive a conception or an enallage of person, Ephes. 2.3. used often in speeches, whereby a speaker takes that to himself which is proper to others, whether to avoid distaste as if he upbraided them, or to insinuate into their affections, or for such like reason. Out of all which I infer, 1. That [Jews by nature] is not put Gal. 2.15. to intimate a birth-priviledge of the children of believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, concerning their Ecclesiastical state even in infancy as visible Churchmembers; but it is put to note either the advantage peculiar to the Jewish nation in that the law of Moses was given to them, or rather the greater likelihood and meetness or congruity to seek or claim righteousness by the law then the Gentiles. 2. That he meant not they were Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace. For that were clean opposite to his intention, which was to shew that their estate of being Jews by nature did not confer to their justification, which doubtless it would have done if it had been by the Covenant of grace, but to intimate, that the law was given to them, or rather they studious of it, and Zelots for it, and therefore if any, they should be justified by p. 618it▪ as Paul in a like place, Phil. 3.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. So that whatever advantage or precedency is intimated by it, it is ascribed to the law, and their observing of it, not to the new Covenant of grace. 3. The deteriority or worse condition of the Gentiles is ascribed to them, not barely in respect of their birth from unbelievers, and so agreeing to their infants, much less as agreeing to infants of unbelieving Jews as well as Gentiles, but in respect of their manners either onelyonly or chiefly, and so not competent to infants. And therefore notwithstanding Mr. Bl. thought Gal. 2.15. a fit Text for his Sermon, in which he asserted infants birth-priviledge of believing Gentiles, though Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines crack in their Epistle before Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter, that he hath truly stated the the question, set it upon the right basis, and well fortified it, and Mr. Bl. hath produced somewhat from Mr. Cantwright to colour his parallelling 1 Cor. 7.14. with Gal. 2.15. yet I say still, and have such a gift of impudence as to aver, that both Mr. Cartwright was mistaken, and Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines did vainly crack of Mr. Bls. Birth priviledge, and Mr Bl. hath grosly abused Gal. 2.15. as he did also Gal 4.29. and there is no parallelism of 1 Cor. 7.14. and Gal. 2.15. to interpret the one by the other.

3. Saith Mr. Bl. The argument thus understood is untrue: The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party, as to the holiness of the issue, twice over; the unbeliever is meerly passive in it, when the child hath legitimation equally from both. Against his interpretation, and for mine (which Chamier affirms to be Calvini & omnium nostrorum) take these arguments. 1. That holiness which necessarily follows to the issue, from the sanctification of an unbelieving by a believing yokefellow, is Covenant holiness, and not legitimation: But the holiness in this place of the Apostle necessarily follows to the issue from the sanctification of an unbeliever by a believer; Ergo, it is Covenant holiness, 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 holiness is derived from the eminence of one parent (viz. the believing parent) above the other; Ergo, it is not legitimation. 3. The result or fruit which follows from a believers faith is not legitimation: But the holiness in the Text is a result of the faith of the believing yokefellow. The minor is evident, seeing faith is twice hinted at in the believer. I know that Mr. T. denies that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in the believing: It is (saith he) in the husband, not in the believing husband; in the wife, not in the believing wife, that is not in the Text. The marriage is between a believer and an unbeliever, the unbeliever is sanctified, whether husband or wife by their yokefellow, but not by their believing yoke fellow; the Reader that puts off his reason may matter such denials.

Answ. The Reader that puts on his reason, will easily see good reason for my denial of each of the minors in each of Mr. Bls. three arguments, and the vanity of Mr. Bls. arguings, laying the stress wholly upon the believing party, which is not expressed in the Text, but onelyonly hinte…; p. 619and upon a translation of the particle foreign by, which is not denied but may be translated in or to. Will any man of competent reason conceive, that the Apostle being to give reason of his resolution of an important point of cons…ienc…, about which he was by Letter consulted, would so loosely argue as to leave out the chief word from whence he inferred his conclusion, and conclude holiness as resulting from that which is not named, yea though he named the opposite term twice; and express a causality or antecedency by a term that had ordinarily another respect, when there was a proper and usual particle foreign to express it by? And on the other side so precisely name the terms of husband and wife twice, and your children expresly, and yet lay no part of the stress upon the conjugal relation so often and so plainly mentioned? Yea, do we think that the Apostle giving a reason why the husband and wife might live together in disparity of Religion, would lay the whole stress upon that which was meerly accidental to their marriage state, to wit, the ones being a believer, and the f…deral holiness of children, without which their mrrriage might be good at first, and they lawfully continue together, and not ascribe it to that conjugal relation, continuing which alone made their living together lawfull as their comming together at first? That Chamier did overlash in saying the interpretation of federal holiness was omnium nostrorum, is manifest by the words of Musculus, Melancthon, and Camerarius, c…ted by me in my Exercitation sect. 5. That it was Calvins and many mo…e Protestants opinion, is a prejudice against our opinion, but should not be with those that determine upon evidence of reason, not the authority of men. Calvin was an excellent man, but we may say of him, Non videt omnia. I follow Mr. Bl. in his next section.

Whereas Mr. Bl saith, I put the Apostles argument into this form, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife, then were your children unclean; But they are not unclean, but holy; Ergo, the unbelieving huusband is sanctified by the wife: Had he dealt fairly with me, he would have rectified the major, and changed [by] into [to,] the conclusion of the syllogism, and the words next before and all along in that section of my Examen having [to the wife] which I contend for in that section, and pag. 14, 15. of my Exercitation, as the genuine reading, disclaiming [by the wife,] and of this advertise Mr. M. p. 97. of the first part of this Review. The rest of the section is spent about the proposition proving this sequel, [If the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in or to the wife, your children were unclean,] and so included in the Apostles consequence. Mr. Bl. would have it to be thus, Answer to my Letter, p. 38. [All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer.] I conceive this proposition to be included in the Apostles consequence, [All the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are unclean;] or [none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are holy.] The point in difference between us, is, whether it be necessary to insert [of an unbeliever, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer.] This I deny for these reasons. 1. That is not necessary to p. 620be inserted, without which the Apostles conclusion is inferred: But the Apostles conclusion is inferred without Mr. Bls. addition; Ergo. The major is of it self evident. The minor is thus proved. The Apostle in his argument doth not at all mention sanctification for generation, there may be and was sanctification without generation, else no husband and wife could be sanctified one in or to another except children were begotten, and so the Apostle should not resolve the lawfulness of their l…ving together who were barren▪ which is absurd. Nor is it necessary to add [by a believer,] sith the Apostle hath omitted it, and that as it is very probable of set purpose. Nor is it necessary to add [unbeliever] because it is false then even according to Paedobaptists hypotheses. For then it would fo…low, the children of two believers are unclean, and so Isaac and Jacob should be unclean, or out of the Covenant; if this were added all the children of those parents, whereof one is not an unbeliever sanctified for generation by a believer, are unclean.

2. The second reason I form thus. That is not necessary to be added, which would make the Apostles proposition false: But Mr. Bls. addition would make the Apostles proposition false. For it is false, which he makes the Apostles proposition, All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer. For whether by uncleanness we understand non-admissibleness into the Church, it is false; for the children of unbelievers bought with money by Abraham, though infants, yet were in Mr. Bls. sense federally holy: and me thinks Mr. Bl. who asserts against Mr. Firmin the baptizability of the infants of the generality of En…lish though the parents be openly profane, and hate godliness, should not deny it: however, the case is clear in the Circumcision of professed infidels children bought with money, Gen. 17.27. And for federal real holiness, I suppose Mr. Bl. will not deny, but that many of them, as Rahab, &c. were in the Covenant of saving grace.

To the first of these, Mr. Bl. 1. saith thus, pag. 338. I pray leave generation out, and see whether there can be any sense in it, unless it be understood; their sanctification will confer no legitimation, without generation; if I say not believer, I must say husband or wi…e that is a believer.

Asw. If generation be left out, and believer, it may be good sense according to my interpretation. An unbelieving husband may be sanctified to his wife, that is, may lawfully use her though she were an unbeliever as his wife, and may continue to live with her, and she with him, though they never had or should have children, else your children which you might beget should be unclean; but this being put, they are legitimate. But according to Mr. Bls. interpretation it is not good sense in the case of the barren; for she or he are not instrumentally sanctified for generation, there being no generation there is no being an instrument for generation, nor sanctification thereto. And an instrument is an efficient, and where there is no effect there is no efficient, nor instrument: And to be sanctified instrumentally must be as an instrument to a principal agent, which in this thing cannot be any other then God; p. 621now no instrument of God fails to produce its effect, therefore without actual generation, no wife can bee said to bee instrumentally sanctified for generation. And for the leaving out the term [believer] it is good sense as I expound it without it, and if the Apostle had not conceived it good sense without it, hee would not, as hee did, have left it out. But I confess it is not good sense according to Mr. Bls. interpretation, who saith (though falsely) p. 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party, as to the holiness of the issue twice over. I confess their sanctification would confer no legitimation actual without actual generation; yet their might bee legitimation of issue (which is enough to shew the consequence to bee good and for the Apostles purpose) without actual generation, the legitimati…n being onelyonly upon supposition (as it is usual in such arguments) and so the generati…n onelyonly supposed. Doubtless the Apostle resolved the Corinthians of the lawful living together of the barren as well as they that had or should beget, which wil… not agree with Mr. Bls. exposition of instrumental sanctification for that is not true but of actual generation past or future, as I have proved.

But Mr. Bl. adds, the Apostles major is of an unbelieving huusband and a believing wife, and I make the propo…tion universal, according to the capacity of the subject of all believing wives joyned to unbelieving husbands, not with Mr. T. of all husbands and wives. And this is the Apostles included proposition, which must bee the basis of so many inferences and refutations, when yet all mens Logick (except what Mr. T. hath learnt) will utterly disclaim it.

Answ. That the Apostles major is not of an unbelieving husband and a believing wife, is manifest by the words in which the term [believing] is in both speeches left out. And sure if the Apostle would have ascribed any thing to the believer as such, hee could as easily have put it in as the term unbeliever, or the terms brother or sister, used v. 12, 15. And though I deny not that the wife, or huusband opposite to the infidel yoke-fellow were believers, yet I have l…arned so much Logick and Divinity, that what attributes do agree materially do not alwayes agree formally in each speech, as though Ishmael was the son of Abraham, yet what is said of him Gal. 4 13, 24, 25, 29, 30, 3…. is said of him n…t as Abrahams sonne, but as Hagars. And so it is here, though the husband or wife were a believer, yet they are not there consid…red as believers, nor the things there spoken of them ascribed to them under that consideration, but under the consideration of husband and wife: and if any disclaim this Logick, he will disclaim such Logick as the holy Scripture useth in these and other places.

I alledged in my Examen part. 3. sect. 8. p. 78. the words of Chamier: tom. 4. paustr. cath. l. 5. c. 10. §. 67. against Augustines interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14. o… a ceremonial holiness, as apposite to refute his own of federal. For saith hee, that interpretation is ridiculous if these propositions bee not true, that all born of those …arents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, are begotten in the time of the womans monethly courses, Infidel husbands never use their wives but at such time, for so the p. 622Apostle is made to speak by Augustines interpretation. Now the self same I shewed to follow on his own interpretation, the words being changed which should bee changed in such a retorsion. For then according to it the Apostle should say, All the children born of those parents of whom one is not san…tified in the other, are out of the Covenant of grace, infidel parents never beget of their wives children within the Covenant of grace. Both which are false, and consequently the interpretation of Chamier, whence it is apparent that Chamier made these pr…positions in the Apostles arguing to be included, Those children whereof one parent is not sanc…ified in the other are unclean, none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are holy. I said also in my Antidote pag. 16. that Mr. Bl. confessed these propositions included in the Apostles consequence. Against this Mr. Bl. thus riseth up.

What can I i…agine but that Mr. T. knowingly fastens this gross untruth upon mee? Seeing he so we I knowes that I both deny it and have argued against it (having made such defence …s he could in his Apology of it) y…t now in his Antidote says I confess it. I am overmuch honoured to be named (if I may say so) the day that Chamier is mentioned, but as much wronged to have such a Monster of absurdities (as is contained in that proposition) obtruded upon mee; my thoughts are over-high of Chamier to believe any such weakness in him, when Mr. T. shewes it in him (having yet given his Reader no account where it may bee found) I shall subscribe to that Proverb; Nullum magnum ingenium sine aliqua mixtura dementiae.

Answ. Chamiers words in the place cited, making the Apostles arguing with Augustines exposition to include the two propositions before named, do plainly shew, that in his Logick the Apostle asserted these propositions, All the children whereof one parent is not sanctified in the other are unclean, none of them are holy; and Mr. Bl. in his answer to my Letter ch. 7. sect. 2. pag. 36. to my fourth argument against instrumental sanctification thus made, in this form of reasoning this proposition is included; Their children could not bee holy without that sanctification, which could not bee true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness, replies never den…ing the proposition to bee included, but avers i… true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness, yea most true, necessarily and universally true: Now hee that saith without that sanctification (of one parent in the other) the children could not be holy, saith none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are holy, to which is equipollent all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are unclean. And thus it is shewed Mr. Bl. where hee and Chamier confessed those propositions to bee included, which indeed have no monster of absurdities in them, but are the genuine medium of the Apostles argument, and Chamier without any mixture of madness, did acutely discern to be included in the Apostles reasoning, though hee heeded not how this very observation overthrowes his own interpretation as well as Augustines.

p. 623The rest of this section not answered about the reason I gave why the proposition included in the Apostles sequel is to be conceived without the terms of believer and unbeliever inserted by Mr. Bl. and the illustration of it I shall make no further reply to here, but refer the Reader to what is so largely spoken in vindication of my self in the first part of this Review sect. 21. pag. 170. sect. 36. pag. 249, 250. I proceed to examine Mr. Bls. fifth Sect. of the 29th. Chapter, although there are some things in the sixth Section which perhaps might bee more fitly answered first.

Mr. Bl. Sect. 5. having said that I alledge, that the Apostles in this text brings a formal argument to prove the marriage society of these yoke-fellowes lawful, which in the two former verses hee had determined, hee then adds.

And it cannot be denied but the words at the first sight, seem to carry some colour to understand them so far in Mr. T. his sense, as to make them formal, concluding reasons of his former determination having said v. 12, 13. then hee adds v. 14. But the way of inference will as well bear it, that the Apostle doth first determine in the controversie by revelation (as Mr. T. will have it) as an Apostle, then takes off their scruples which o…casioned their fears, both respective to their posterity and themselves; Mr. T. indeed challenges this way of interpretation to make 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 of their posterity and themselves, it must needs bee that they signified them and hee answers them; The Apostles method (it is true) and manner of inference indifferently favours either interpretation; But the words themselvs clearly evince, that they are a removal of scruples against their marriage society, and not a formal concluding argument against it.

Answ. It is true it is a bottome I build much on, 1. That the Apostle brings the media or middle terms of two Syllogisms or formal arguments v. 14. to prove the lawfulness of the continuance in marriage society of the believing yoke-fellow with the unbeliever, determined by him v. 12, 13. and that they are not as v. 16. a Rhetorical argument onelyonly to move the affe…ions to embrace what before their judgements were setled in, but a Logical proof of the resolution by setting down the medium out of which a syllogism is to be framed to infer the conclusion. 2. That the Apostle doth not at all resol…e any doubt about their posterity, but takes the state of their posterity as out of doubt with them, and thence infers that which was doubtful to them concerning their own marriage state. Now Mr. Bl denies not the words at first sight seem to carry some calour to understand them so far in my sense as to make them formal, concluding reasons of the Apostles former determination, and confesseth the Apo…les method and manner of inference indifferently favours either interpretation. B…t that the words are to bee analysed and conceived onelyonly in …he form I have resolved them, I prove, first by the particles, for, else, but now: all these particles are argumentative. p. 624[For] in many places, as Rom. 3.20. & 4.15, &c. 1 Corinth. 7.9, 31, &c. foreign translated else, or otherwise, or for then are argumentative, as 1 Cor. 5.10. & 15.15, 29. Rom. 11.6. in which places it notes an absurdity consequent, if the antecedent bee not granted: foreign but now, is used also frequently as an argumentative particle, as 1 Corinth. 12.18, 20. Rom. 3.21. Heb. 8.6. & 9.26. there are both these used, as foreign & foreign, so 1 Corinth. 15.20. And accordingly Pasor in his Lexicon on the word foreign, dici…ur etiam foreign, 1 Cor. 15.20. interdum servit assumptioni syllogismi, 1 Cor ▪ …. v. 14 & 15. v. 20. Mr. Cobbet Just. vindic. p…rt. 1. chap. 1. sect. 1. Where the words foreign used in argumentation, as 1 Cor. 5.10. and the particle foreign in like sort used, 1 Cor. 12.18, 20. So Rom. 3.2…. Heb 8.6, & 9.26. & 11.16. Do declare that that sentence (in the la…ter part of 1 Cor. 7.14.) is annexed in way of argumentation to the proposition immediately before. Beza annot. ad 1 Cor. 7.14. particula foreign hoc in loco non est temporis adverbium, sed est conjunctio quae adhiberi solet in argumentorum assumptionibus. 2. This is proved from the ma…teer, i… is agreed on that the Apostle determines the doubt of he Corinthians v. 12, 13. and it is apparent that the first part of v. 14. is a reason of his determination. Let us consider the det…rmination v. 12, 13. let him not put her away, let her not leave him. Now this determination may be understood either as a plain prohibition forbi…ding the believer to put away or leave the unbeli…ving yoke-fellow at all, being contented to dwell with the believer. But this sense seems not to me to be the Apostles intent; 1. Because it might then be a hard yoke, that a believer must not put away his wife which will dwell with him though she play the harlot; or it may be understood as a determination of their liberty, Let him not put her away, let her not leave him, that is, there is no necessity that he should put her away, that she should leave him, conscience and duty to God ties them not to do so, and this sense seems most probable to me, though I reject not the other, if some limitation more be added, as thus, let him not put her away, nor shee leave him, that is, I forbid them to leave each other barely for the disparity of religion. Now the reasons of this later explication are these. 1. Because the phrase v. 15. let him depart is not an absolute command but a permission, as the words following, a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, shew, and the like is to bee said of the resolution v. 17. so let him walk, that is, so hee may walk, and that it is the sense, I gather from the instances in the following verses, whereby the Apostle illustrates his determination v. 17. Is any man called being uncircumcised? v 18. let him not become uncircumcised: Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Which speeches do not absolu…ely forbid the drawing up the fore-skin or the cutting it off, there might bee cases in which either might be lawful, but leave it at liberty, and so much the words …ollowing also intimate circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandements of God, which expression intimates the i…differency of these, and the non availing to ingratiate us to God, which is not a fit reason for an absolute prohibition, but for a determination concerning the liberty of either.

p. 625Then the Apostle v. 20. repeats his determination v. 17. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called; which (though true of it) is not meant of his …hristian general calling, as if he had said, Let every man abide in Christianity wherein he was called, which the words seem at first r…ading to import; for the words following, v. 21. Art thou called being a servant? do shew, that the term [calling] v. 20. notes th… state of life antecedent to his being a Christian, which by an elegant …ntanaclasis is termed by the Apostle his calling: And this the Apostle doth not enjoyn so as that he forbids any servant to be free; but the meaning i…, as Diodati in his Annot. rightly expounds it, He may abide therein with a safe conscience, and ought not rashly to change it, neither through superstition, nor by doing another any wrong: but if he can do it for any just causes, or through any lawfull means, it is then lawfull for him to do it. The same is repeated v. 24. and is to be understood, not (as oft preachers do understand it) of a mans trade, or imployment onelyonly, and as an absolute command, that a man should not leave his i…ployment, trade, or function in which he was bred, as of a tradesman to become a preacher▪ &c. but the calling is any state of life in which the person was found, who was called to be a Christian, as to be circu…cised or uncircu…cised, a servant or freeman, married or unmarried, subject or Magistrate, and so proves that Magistracy or any other state of life is consistent with Christianity. And the Apostles determination is not of necessi…y, as if a Christian might not alter the calling or state of life he was in when he was converted, for then the servant might not become free, nor the unmarried marry; but of liberty, that Christians should not think themsel…es bound by their Christian profession, to forsake these estates, but they might continue in them. And so is the resolution v. 12, 13. to be expounded. 2. This exposition is agree…ble to the occasion of the Apostles determination, which was the Corinthian Christians doubt of the lawfulness of their living together, not of the inconvenience or convenience (for in that they could have best resolved themselves) and so the Apostles resolution is of the lawfulness of living together. 3. This is further confirmed from the reason of his determination, v. 12, 13. in the first part of v. 14. which is apparently set down to meet with the reason of their doubt: they thought that they might not live with the unbeliever, because unholy. The Apostle on the contrary determines though hee were unholy in himself, yet he was to his wife as if hee had been holy: and the reason is thus, The wife may live with him as her husband, who though an unbeliever, is in respe…t of marriage use as if he were sanctified: But so is the unbelieving husband; Ergo. Which reason cannot be a meer Rhetorical argument to move the affection, for it supposeth the unbeliever continuing such which was their vexation; but an argument to satisfie their consciences: Yet not of their duty that they must live together, for it is heterogeneous to that end, they were not bound to live together by reason of the sanctifiedness of the unbeliever, bu… Gods command, which alone makes duty; but of the lawfulness notwithstanding his infidelity, by determining against the ground of their p. 626doubt, the unlawfulness of living together with an unsanctified infidel. As for the words following, [Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy,] they cannot be the resolution of another doubt: but 1. the forms of expression [foreign, else or otherwise, and but now,] do plainly shew, that those words do confirm what was said next before, [the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband.] 2. They shew that the thing was certain even to them, that their children were not unclean, and that it was absurd in their conceits that their children should be unclean. Mr. Bl. himself saith, Vindic. Faed. pag. 323. 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. Which words do plainly set down the two propositions I conceived in the Apostles argument, which Mr. Bl. terms a monster of absurdity; for [It is certain that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose, the children are holy,] is equipollent to this, [All the children of those parents whereof one is sanctified to the other, are holy;] and [it is certain, that were it not that they were thus sanctified, they were unclean,] is equipollent to this, [none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, are clean or holy:] and hereby their fear is confessed to have been about their own living together, and the ground of it the imagined non sanctifiedness of the parent, and that [else] doth imply a certainty of the childrens holiness upon this account of sanctification of the parent; which evidently shews, that the childrens holiness is a consequent of the parents sanctification, and brought to prove it, and not to resolve another doubt of them. Yea, it were ridiculous to resolve a doubt by a doubt, to resolve them their children were holy, because they were holy. Rightly saith Piscator in hi… scholie on the place. The argument is from the effect, to wit a consequent absurdity, and it is after this form, If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified in the wife, their children would be unclean: But they are not unclean, for they are holy; therefore the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife. Whence it is apparent, that the words are not a resolu…n of a doubt of their children, for then the childrens holines… would have been the conclusion, whereas it is the assumption, and consequently that the Apostle useth formal arguments, or gives the middle-terms of them, and that he doth not resolve two doubts, but one of the lawfulness of the living together of yokefellows in disparity of Relig…on, and th…t the first argument is taken from that which obviate… the ground of their fear, and the later confirms that argument from a consequent absurdity even in their apprehension, if that were not granted. T…is to be the t…u… Analysis o… the Apostles words, the words of Chamier, Beza, Zegedin in his tables, and many more do shew, which I forbear to alledge as conceiving it needless. What saith Mr. Bl. to this?

Let us look first into v. 16. where the [for] may lay as fair a claim to a formal reason as this in the …4th. and M. …. himself says is a reason, Antip…d pag. 110. But I would fain learn how he can make it up into a reason; he must thus draw it up. Whom a man in marria…e p. 637society may have hopes to save from idolatrous ways, with such a one he may continue in marriage society: But a believing husband in marri…ge society may have hopes to save his unbelieving wife from idolatrous ways▪ Ergo ▪ This proposition as to such a conclusion is 1. vain; for though there were no such hopes, yet marriage society is to be continued, Gentilism being not of the substance of marriage, which Mr. T seems to yeeld, Examen, pag 121. 2. This proposition is false as to this purpose; the incestuous Corinthian might …ave had hopes to have converted his fathers wife (if a heathen) and yet such hopes would not conclude the lawfulness 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 b…en obje…ed, it had be…n frivolous. We have many …ases put about marriage, if such an argument would serve the turn, it would salv… them all.

Answ. Though I say 1 Cor. 7.16. is a reason to perswade to the resolution v. 13. yet I do not say it is a reason to conclude the lawfulness of living together, but to perswade them the rather to live together from the possibility or hopefulness of that event, which he urgeth in a Rhetorical way in an interrogation, not in a Logick way as he did v. 14. and yet it may be drawn up Logically thus. They are the rather to live together, it being otherwise determined lawfull, whereof one, if they live together, may save the o…her: But so it may be if the brother or sister live with the infidel yokefellow, Ergo. So that by my maintaining that v. 14. [for] notes the medium of a formal argument, and that thereby the lawfulness of the believing and infidel yokefellows continuing together in marriage society is concluded, and that [for, v. 16.] notes a reason of the resolution, v 16. yet it follows not the conclusion inferred v. 16. is the same with that inferred v. 14. nor the reason to be drawn as Mr. Bl. would, nor is there any need I should retract my Analysis of v. 12, 13, 14. nor answer Mr. Bls. objections against … argument which I neither ascribe to the Apostle, nor is deducible out of any of my grants.

Mr. Bl. adds. And for v. 14. though I cannot say, but in case i… were made up (into Mr. Ts. his sense) into a reason of the former conclusion, it would contain a truth, and so far might pass 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 silly, childish, vain, your married condition is lawfull, else your children were bastards▪ what child in Corinth but well understood it? 2. From the phrase in which it is delivered altogether unsuitable to a reason of this doctrine, 1. being onelyonly to tell them, that the legitimation of their issue proved the lawfulness of their marriage society, he should attribute all (as to either sex) to the believer, when the child owe… his legitimation equally to either parent: 2: That being to give … reason of the lawfulness of marriage in such a special case, he should give his reason of equal concernment to all marriages▪ where both are unbelievers, both believers, as well as this between a believer and an unbeliever: p. 6283. When he is to speak onelyonly of legitimation and bastardy, he should phrase it in such uncouth language, and in words fit it onelyonly suteable to their parents Ecclesiastical capacity, whether title to it, as in the believer, or want of it, as in the unbeliever. Now on the other hand interpret the Apostles words (as his method will equally beare) accordingly as you have heard before, and no such inconvenience follows from the words either v. 14. or 16.

Answ. Mr. Bls. confession that my analysis and exposition would contain a truth, and that it might pass in the way of a reason, and therefore is opposite to the Apostles purpose, and his exceptions though termed by him material, yet as I shall shew, having no weight, and his method and exposition neither agree with the words nor matter, is a very good evidence for me against him. As for his exceptions, they are the same which he brought before, sect. 3. and are answered by me in this section, that it was the fitter for the Apostle to us… if the reason were so easily understood that the Apostle doth not attribute all to the believer, that no reason was so fit to settle them about their special case, as that which evinced, that the marriage state was not made void by the unbelief of the parties, that the Apostles phrases are not uncouth language after my sense, but very agr…eable to such language he useth in the same Chapter; as when v. 20 by an Antana…lasis he terms the civil state of the Christians the calling wherein they are called, and to other expressions, as I shew in the first part of this Review, sect. 12, 23, 24, 25, 26 and that the phrases are not suitable to the parents Ecclesiastical capacity; and the Apostles speeches and argument do imply falshood, and are inconsistent with the terms and matter of them, if expounded and r…solved as Mr. Bl. would.

Mr. Bl. adds. And now Mr. T. may easily receive answer to that odious inference, which he makes from our interpretation of Covenant holiness. According to this interpretation (saith he) the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of a believing fornicatrix living with an unbelieving fornicator, as may appear (saith he) by a syllogistical 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 i… sanct…fied to the …ther for begetting an holy seed. This is manife…ly the Apostles reason after our interpretation. But Mr. T. is manifestly mistaken, not to mention the liberty that …e 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 conclud… the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue, but shews that t…e supposed and feared non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness: And I dare yeeld that any man an… woman may live together, notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue; where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed. And if Mr. T. will apply this, which the Apostle speaks, of a p. 629mans living with his wife (ad faciendum populum) to the living wi…h his whore, there is no danger to yeeld it; Pharez his issue had belonged to the Commonweal of Israel, if Thamar had been an infidel, as for ought wee know, in all probability it was with Jephtaes mother. If Sampson had issue by the harlot of Gaza Judg. 16.1. such issue had belonged to Israel, such …ssue male had right to circumcision. To gratifie Mr. T. 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.

Answ. There is no mistake in my argument, nor is there any answer at all made by Mr. Bl. to it, which hee either wittingly or unwittingly I judge not, certain I am he doth manifestly mistake. He tels me, The Apostle doth not conclude the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue, whereby he intimates as if I said he did, and that therein was my mistake: But let my words be viewed Apol. sect. 18. p. 96. Postscript. sect. 7. p. 122. Review part. 1. sect. 22, 36. and it will appear that I frame not the argument so according to the Apostle …ightly onderstood, but as Mr. M. and others interpret him. I said the Apostle concludes the lawfulness of their living together by the sanctification of the husband though an unbeliever to or in the wife, and that the proposition of the Apostle is, They may live together whereof one is sanctified in the other, the assumption is, But the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, Ergo. Now the major with Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition hath this sense, They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for the begetting a holy seed, for so they expound the Apostle. But according to them the vnbelieving fornicator is sanctified by the believing fornicatrix for the begetting a holy seed, which is confessed by them. By Mr. Bl. here, when he saith, The issue of Tamar, Jephtha's mother, the Harlot at Gaza were holy federally: and for the major there is no necessity of putting in [husband and wife] sith as Mr. Bl. saith p, 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party, as to the holiness of the issue, and here, I dare yeeld, saith he, that any man and woman may live together, notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue; where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed. Now put all these together. The Apostle argues the believer may live with the unbeliever, because the one is sanctified in the other, and this sanctifying is according to Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition for the begetting a holy seed, and this begetting of a holy seed according to Mr. Bl. is ascribed wholly to the faith of the one parent, it's a result or fruit of the parents faith whether married or unmarried, therefore according to Mr. Bls. exposition of the Apostle, …he lawfulness of living together is deduced from th…t which doth as well ag…ee to fornicators as the married, and consequently …he lawfulness of living together in fornication is inferred from the Apostles reason as Mr. Bl. and Mr. M. and others expound it as well as of husband and wife. It is true I would not allow another to leave [husband and wife] exprest in the text out of the argument framed by me according to my exposition, which is the Apostles meaning as I conceive, because p. 630I lay the whole stress upon those terms, and still contend that no persons are sanctified one in or to another but the husband and wife, and that these are so sanctified, whether one or both or neither are believers. But if I frame the reason according to Mr. Ms. Mr. Bls. and others interpretation of the Apostle, I am to be allowed to leave them out, sith by them no stress is laid on the husband and wife or conjugal relation, but the faith of one party. That there was any such fear of non-federation of issue, or supposition of it in the Corinthians if they livid together cannot be evinced from the text, but the contrary is manifest by the arguing from the uncleanness of their children, as an absurdity in their apprehensions, and the holiness of them as a thing known and certain to them, as the particle [else] shews: and therefore that the Apostle shews that the feared and supposed non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness, is but a fiction, nor doth the Apostle make any such distinction between concluding the lawfulness, and the not concluding the unlawfulness, between which if there bee any distinction (which yet I perceive not) yet it is certain that the words v. 12, 13. let him not put her away, let her not leave him, are a positive resolution of the lawfulness of their continuing together in marriage society, and the reason shews v. 14. that the doubt was of the believers conjunction with the unbeliever, because he was an unsanctified person, and consequently the reason of the doubt was not the fear of the non-federation of issue but the unlawfulness of marriage society with an infidel unsanctified: and consequently it is a monstrous addition which Mr. Bl. seems to put either into the conclusion thus, let her not leave him if this be all the fear the non-federation of issue, or in the reason, They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other party, so as that there is no fear of the non federation of their issue, there being nothing in the text for this addition. Yet if it were put in it will justifie my odious inference as hee terms it. For let the major be thus after Mr. Bls. minde, They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other, so as there is no fear of non-federation of their issue, the minor is thus expresly after Mr Bls. minde; But the unbelieving fornicatrix is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicator, so as that there is no fear of non-federation of their issue, Ergo they may live together according to Mr. Bl. and consequently Mr. Bl. blasphemously by his exposition makes the Apostle justifie the living together of a believer with an unbeliever in fornication; which is enough to shew the falshood of that exposition, yea and of any other which ascribes the sanctified…ess v. 14. (which is the reason of their lawful living together, v. 12, 13.) to the faith of the one party, and not to the conjugal relation. The rest of Mr. Bls. talk of my willingness to have him waste his time, his falling on my sapless tree, the readiness of his axe, his pains in applying it, is vain and frivolous talk, sith the tree still stands after all his hacking and hewing at it, and his axe appears to bee very blunt, or else he strikes besides the tree. As for my sixe years space, Mr. Bl. might have understood that the reason of my not publishing the first part of my Review till 1652. six years after the printing of Apology, was (besides my p. 631constant labours and extraordinary publike and private employments) from the necessity of my removing my dwelling from the Temple to Bewdley, from Bewley to Ledbury, thence to Lemster, besides my frequent flittings by reason of the wars, travels to regain my plundered goods, difficulty to get my treatise printed, the variety of Antagonists I had to answer, which is yet the reason of my slowness in publishing this part of the Review, and comes from the venemous spirit of such as Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists, who would never comply with me in the fair motion in the Epilogue of my Examen to joyn together in a brotherly way of ventilating the point, but what they can bait me with calumnies tending to discredit me as covetous, arrogant, &c. with multitude of replies, and magnifying them though frivolous, vilifying my writings that men might not reade them, and discern the truth, nor Book-sellers be willing to print or sell them, stirring up Parliaments and Rulers to remove those of our way, out of all places which have publike salary, that our hands may be weakned; which I may truly call wicked practises, of which too many of them have been guilty, and for which God will judge them. I go on.

Mr. Bl. sect. 6. to my argument against his instrumental sanctification, that barren persons cannot be said to be instrumentally sanctified for producing an holy seed pressed by me in the 1. part of this Review p. 150, 151. sect. 19: saith thus, And I will 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 others in the same condition of marriage are childless, or unable to bring forth children? Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra. 10. were not unclean, notwithstanding many so married had no children; Many of the Priests had herein transgrest, and it was but some of them had wives by whom they had children, Ezra 10.44. All which I grant, but there is not a jot in all this which answers my objection▪ that the barren by accident or nature could not bee said to bee sanctified to produce an holy seed, and yet the reason of the Apostle must bee conceived to reach to the proof of the lawfulness of their living together in disparity of religion as well as the fruitful, and therefore the sanctifying must be expounded in another sense then Mr. Bls. which agrees not to their case.

But hee adds. And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination, v. 1…. that they might live together, pag. 152. hee will have it to be from a future contingent; but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination, as hath been sufficiently sh…wn it is not, this fals with the other.

Answ. That it hath been sufficiently shewn that the first part of v. 14. is not a medium for proof of the Apostles determination, is said without any colour of truth. All the reason I finde given is, v. 16. is not a formal reason, ergo, neither v. 14. to which answer hath been given by denying both the antecedent and the consequence, it is a formal reason though not …s Mr. Bl. frames it, and if it were not, yet the term [for, else, but now] being argumentative terms, shew there is formal reasoning p. 632v. 14. v. 14. and the producing an holy seed being a contingent event, if the Apostle should, as Mr. Bls. exposition makes him, prove their lawful living together, because the unbeliever is sanctified instrumentally to produce an holy seed, hee should argue from an uncertain event, which Chamier tom. 4. paustr. Cath. lib. 5. chap. 10. sect. 46. disapproved in another case, as I shew in my Examen pag. 7….

To my argument against instrumental sancti…cation, that it cannot be meant o… it, sith the barren cannot bee said to bee Gods instrument, …or that always effects, and when God sanctifies hee specially designes some, whereas this is common to all husbands and wives, and the unbeliever is said to bee sanctified, whereas it is the believer according to them who is the instrument of producing a holy seed.

Mr. Bl. saith, I am sure they bring …orth 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 who 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. Bee fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth; All believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed, it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed.

Answ. What is said Ezek. 16.20. was said onelyonly of Israelites and those manifest idolaters as well as true believers, and the words do import no more but this, that the Israelites children were born of right to him, that is, to be at his disposal for his service, Levit. 25.42. because hee brought them out of Egypt, and therefore it was unjust in them to alienate them from him by offering them to idols, which is not to be said of the Corinthian believers children. Matth. 23.9. is as impertinently alledged, for it speaks not of Gods being a Father in respect of natural generation, nor forbids calling any man a father in that respect, but in that manner in which the Jews termed their teachers fathers and themselv…s their children, in respect of absolute subjection of their consciences to their dictates, as Diodati rightly in his annot. This teacheth the believers not to yeeld that absolute reverence, nor power over their consciences to any living man which belongeth to God onelyonly, as ignorant people did use to do to the Pharisees. If a…l natural parents be instruments of God to people the world, yet Mr. Bl. will not say they are instruments to produce a holy seed to peo…le the Church for the… all children and not believers onelyonly should b…e fede…ally holy: so t…at all this is meerly impertinent. That all believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed, is said without proof, there being no such promise to them and their seed produced, nor if there were did it follow they were all federally holy in Mr. …ls. sense: But were this g…anted, yet it is no…hing to prove the unbelieving parent to bee Gods instrument to produce a holy seed, who is said, and not the believer to bee sanctified, and that signanter considered as an unbeliever, much less every unbelieving wife though b…rren who hath a believing husband, much less to bee specially designed for that p. 633end, and therefore the sanctification instrumental which Master Bl. conceives meant 1 Corinth. 7.14. is quite besides the Apostles meaning.

Mr. Bl. goes on thus of me, The 2d. argument he hath in his Apol. p. 123. where he says that the Apostles proposition understood of federal holiness were most certainly false, giving in his reason, for many children of both unbelieving parents are federally holy; he saith that I answer, they are not so at their birth. My answer is, 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, Mr. T. says, 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 born cannot bee clean at any time, or else Mr. T. his exception is less to purpose, who does not see that the Apostle speaks of uncleanness or holiness, as 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 born of the flesh is flesh, Joh. 3.6. will not hold, unless it must for ever continue flesh, and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise.

Answ. It is true that it seems to me the Apostles proposition hath this in it, that their children born unclean cannot be clean at any time, and I grant that the Apostle speaks of uncle…nness or holiness as a product of their birth or generation, without consideration of any thing which after by providence (through the omnipotence and free grace of God) might happen and therefore of illegitimation and legitimation by birth, and not of federal holiness which is no product of birth, and yet that proposition, That which is born of the flesh is flesh▪ Joh▪ 3.6. will hold, though after the person born after the flesh be made spirit or spiritual, there being no contradiction in this, that the person born after the flesh should become spiritual in his qualities, but it is impossible that that which hath been illegitimate in birth, should not be illegitimate in birth, i… be…ng a thing past, and therefore cannot by God be made not a thing past, or not done, for then it should be true that a thing hath been at birth, and hath not been, been and not been, which is a contradiction.

Mr. Bl saith, I farther add, And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth, whether it bee understood of election, inherent holiness or outward holiness, if God please to work and declare it, I would Mr T would speak, whether there were ever any such a thing a… the child of two unbelievers, at the instant of their birth, declared of God to bee of those whom hee took …o bee federally holy, and of the number of his Covenant people, let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it.

p. 634Answ. 1. Though I could not speak there was such a thing, yet it is enough for me to shew that and how it might be. 2. I doubt not but many a captive woman gotten w…th child by an infidel, and she her self an infidel, hath been delivered in Abrahams house, and those children were in Mr. …ls. sense federally holy at the instant of their birth, for for they were, if males, capable of Circumcision on the eighth day, according to the law, Gen. 17.12, 13. and this is to be federally holy according to Mr. Bls. doctrine, who makes all to be in the Covenant at their birth who are capable by reason of their birth of the sign of the Covenant.

He yet saith. Mr. T. adds, But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned 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 lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife. This must conclude for his interpretation and against ours, because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy, and to make his unclean ones holy, is without the verge of omnipotence: If we should put case in Mr. T. his 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.

Answ. It concludes for me if it be true (which Mr. Bl. disproves not) that the holiness is meant 1 Cor. 7.14. which cannot be without the sanctification there spoken of, and Mr. Bls. holiness may be without his sanctification, and the proposition is true of no other holiness but that which I assign. If the definition of legitimation be a state of birth from parents generating in lawfull marriage, though God should approve of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society, there were no legitimation of the issue, and yet the marriage Deut. 25.5. were lawfull, and the issue legitimate. I am sorry Mr. Bl. hath tyred himself and me with so many impertinent words, which have shaken nothing of my Fabrick: I am glad I am so near an end with him, and pass from him to Mr. Sydenham, who in the 7th. ch. of his Exercit. thus speaks,

The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel priviledge annexed to the state: and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium, of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural, moral, or positive rule; but a majori, from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel. For 1. the unbelieving husband is sanctified in, or to, or by the wife. 2. The children in such a state are holy, as if they had been both believers.

Answ. The scope of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.12, 13, 14. can be no other then the resolving of the doubt in the Corinthians, which Mr. Sydenham truly saith he answered, v. 12, 13. and then gives, v. 14. an argument to prove it. Now therein is no speeial Gospel priviledge held forth; For 1. if any priviledge be there assigned it is to the unbeliever remaining an unbeliever, for he is said to be sanctified▪ But sure an unbeliever▪ remaining an unbeliever hath no special Gospel priviledge; Ergo. 2. The unbeliever is put there, not to shew any meliority of condition p. 635to himself, but to take away the doubt which was concerning him, as defiling their society: So that the meaning is not, the unbeliever is a gainer by his wife, but the unbeliever brings no damage to her in respect of the thing in doubt concerning the lawfulness of continuing together in marriage use by his unbelief; there is no advantage mentioned to either of them, but a determination that there is not that disadvantage from the one as necessitated to leave the other. Nor is there any thing that carries the shew of an argument a majori: The Apostle doth no… say, they have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel, therefore much more may live together. Yea, such an argument had been far from being strong, there being no arguments usually weaker then such, if any disparity may be shewed they are quickly enervated. And in this thing the proposition would have been false upon which such an argument must turn as its hinge, to wit, They that have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel may much the rather live together. For 1. it would have been from that which is meerly extrinsecal and accidental to marriage society, Gospel priviledges neither establishing nor dissolving marriage society, which is lawfull as well among them who have no Gospel priviledge as those that have. 2. The proposition were false, for then if the unbelieving whore have Gospel advantage (as I conceive Mr. S. will not deny any more then other Paedobaptists do) by the believing fornicator, they may live together; so that if the fornicator being a believer beget a holy child on an unbelieving whore, or what ever other Gospel priviledge it is the unbeliever hath by the believer, imagine to cast out Devils in Christs name, though she be not joyned to the Church, to prophesie in Christs name, or to do wonders, by this Gospel priviledge they are allowed to live together in fornication: Which are monstrous absurdities following Mr. Ss. conceit.

But he tels us. That the Apostle holds out a Gospel priviledge, not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state is clear; 1. because the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, and there fixeth it; the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, as believing; and so contrarily, the unbelieving wife in the husband: So …eza affirms, that in two special Copies he finds the words thus read, foreign: Neither can it hold sense with the former words, but as thus read: And if it had not been the Apostles proper meaning to shew the special priviledge the believing party hath notwithstanding the unbeliever, he would have …nely said, the husband is sanctified to the wife, and the wife to the husband; that would have been the plainest and least ambiguous expression of such a sentence: And the Apost…e would never have made an argument of four terms▪ when three could onelyonly satisfie; for all know, that an argument with four terms is most deceitfull and false.

Answ. 1 The reason hath no strength in it, the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, Ergo the Apostle holds out a Gospel priviledge not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state. For there may be expr…ssed an advantage on the believers side, as suppose her liberty, her quiet of conscience, &c. and yet the thing from whence it is p. 636inferred no Gospel priviledge, but a thing common to unbelievers, as in case, a b…liever doubt of the lawfull eating of an infidels meat offered to an Idol, and i… be resolved as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 10.25, 26, 27. from the right God hath to all creatures, here is the advantage on the believers side, the quiet of his conscience, and yet no Gospel priviledge held forth but such as is common to unbelievers, the lawfull eating of what was sold in the shamble…. 2. Mr. Ss. antecedent, that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, and there fixeth it, is contrary to what he said before, that the argument is from an eminent advanta…e they had together in the Gospel; for if they had the eminent advantage together, it was no mor… put or fixed on the believers side then on the unbelievers. 3. It is so far from being true that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side, that it is true rather on the contrary, if any advantage be exprest it is put on the unbelievers side, for the unbeliever is said to be sanctified not the believer. 4. It is not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband as believing, and that which Mr. Sydenham alledgeth to prove it is of no force. For the reading in two Copies is not sufficient to countervail the multitude of Copies which have it otherwise, it being more likely that the addition of foreign and foreign was made by some Scribe then by the Apostle at first, who v. 13. used foreign without it. And for the sense it holds …s good sense without it as it did v. 13. The unbeliever is mentioned not to shew a special priviledge to the believer, but because the occasion of the doubt was from his infidelity, and therefore that could not be omitted without omitting that in which was the force of the objection, which could not be distinctly satisfied without mentioning it; and by putting it in there are not four terms, as unskilfully Mr. S. intimates, but by omitting it there come to be four terms, the conclusion to be proved being this, The wife may live with her unbelieving husband, and the premises these, That wife may live with her husband who is sanctified to her, But so is the unbelieving husband to his wife, Ergo. But of this the Reader may see more at large the first part of this Review, sect. 14.

2. Saith Mr. S. The Apostle doth use higher terms and phrases in this argument, then is ever used in Scripture to express a meer lawfull or common priviledge; as to be sanctified in the wife, and the children to be holy; expressions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil or natural, or legal conjunction: being singled out in Scripture, to hold forth the best state of persons in relation to God and his use.

Answ. 1. Were all this true, as it is not, yet Mr. Ss. conclusion is not proved thereby. For though the terms should never express a meer lawfull or common priviledge, a civil or natural, or legal conjunction, and that they are singled …ut in Scripture to hold forth the b…st sta… of persons in relation to God and his use; yet it follows not the Apostle holds out by them a Gospel priviledge, sith they may hold out a Jewish priviledge, which is not a Gospel, but r…ther a legal priviledge, as the term [holy seed] doth Ezra 9.2. 2. H…w fi…ly these terms sute to the exposition I give without holding forth a Gospel priviledge, may p. 637be seen in my Examen part. 3. sect. 8. in the first part of t…is Review, sect. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26.

Mr. S. adds, 1. That the term unclean notes the same it doth Acts 10.14. where Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church, is called common and unclean, as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise, he was no bastard, he was without the Church just in the same phrase with the Apostle here▪ when he saith that children are not unclean, he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward priviledges of the Church. 2. That [unclean] is used for legal pollutions and uncleannesses, which made men to be separated from the Congregation, and excommunic…ted from the priviledge of ordinances untill they were washed and sanctified: Thus in Levit 5.2, 3, 4. ch. 7.19. & 14.7, 8. Isa. …2.1. Hag 2.13. with many other places, where unclean is opposed to a present suitable capacity for Church priviledges.

Answ. 1 In all those places, Levit. 5.2, 3, 4 & 7.19. & 14.7, 8. Hag. 2.13. Isa. 52.1. the uncleanness is not opposed to a Gosp…l priviledge, but a legal or Jewish, nor were the unclean out of the Covenant or the people of God even when they were unclean, and therefore if … Cor. 7.14. he should tell them their children were not unclean in that sense, he should not tell them of a Gospel priviledge, but a Judaical Legal Mosaical priviledge, which had been both false for they were uncircumcised Gentiles, and therefore were unclean in that sense, and vain to tell them of that as a priviledge, which was no priviledge, but which hee counts nothing of 1 Cor. 7.19. 2. Cornelius is not termed unclean as wanting a Gospel priviledge, he was in Covenant with God and accepted with him▪ and in the visible Church, sith he with his whole house feared God, prayed continually, Acts …0.2. But he is termed unclean as one not mee… by reason of his uncircumcision for a Jew to go into, or eat with Acts 11 3. and therefore if the Apostle should 1 Cor. 7.14. mean it just in the same sense with Acts 10.14. he should tell them their children w…re not unclean, that is, were persons with whom they might ea… and converse which understood of infants were ridiculous …f meant in the …ense God tearmed Cornelius clean, then it is as unfitly appl…ed to infants, who are not clean as Cornelius, in that fearing God and working righteousness he wa… accepted with him, Acts. 10.34, 35. which is more th…n an ou…wa…d Church priviledge and a … thing then Mr. S. and his …ellow Paedobaptist conceive the Apostle meant 1 Cor. 7.14.

That which Mr. S. brings of the use of the word holy that it ex…resseth the Heb…ew word foreign and that it ever signif…es that which is appropriated to a Divine use, and that it is the … notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament, and never taken otherwise: and that for proof of it he hath compared a…ove …00. places in the Old …esta…ent …ccording to the Septuagint, and all the N. T. places where the word is gener…lly taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God how false or insufficient it is to his purpose, is so a…ply shewed in the first part of … Review sect. 12, …3, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. that I conceiv… … this time to add any more. In which place… it may be seen what I grant concerning the word generally taken, and … more places th…n 1 Tim. p. 6384.5. 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. for another use then Mr. S. asserts▪ to bee the proper notion of holy in the Old and N. T. that it notes that which is appropriated to Divine use, and is never taken otherwise, to shew it to bee taken otherwise, as 1 Sam. 21.5. Isai. 13.3. Ezra 9.2, &c. But let's view what hee saith to my allegation of 1 Tim. 4.5. 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. for a different use from his sense.

From 1 Tim. 4.5. saith Mr. T. is meant onelyonly the lawful use of the creature in opposition to what is to be refused. It is a wonder, but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth, how any man of common understanding, finding the word holy and sanctified alwayes used in a religious sense, should flye to this place to make an exception

Answ. I have so far as I thought needful looked into my former writings, and do not finde any place where I say as Mr. S. here saith I do, what I yeelded at the Dispute at Bewdley, and for what reason is shewed in the first part of this Review sect. 27. p. 203. and if Mr. S. took from Mr. B. this which he here so unbrotherly chargeth me with, hee might have there found an answer, which should have been taken notice o…, if my answer printed 1652. came to his knowledge afore the publishing his Exercit. 1653. But I never could finde in my Antagonists Mr. B. M. …l &c. any such candor as to construe any thing that came from me, since this controversie arose between us, in the better part, but I think I may say almost in every thing I have done or said that th…y mention, they pervert my words and deeds, and aggravate them in the worser sense, when they might have had a good or at least excusable construction. As for this thing which Mr. S. here makes an instance of Gods leaving me to blindness when I left truth, the true state of it is thus. I had said in my Examen part. 3. sect. 8. p. 73, 74▪ That this may be the sense, I gather from the like use of the word foreign used 1 Tim. 4.5. where the creature of God is said to be sanctified, that is lawfully used in opposition to that which is to be refused; so here the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is lawfully enjoyed as a husband by, or to, or in respect of his wife, whether believer, or unbeliever, in this case there is no difference, and alledged some words of Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 24. to the same purpose. Which when Mr. M. in his Defence p. 155. framed an argument from against me, I shewed him his mistake in the first part of this Review sect. 13. p. 115. denying the sanctification 1 Cor. 7.14. to bee such a sanctification as that place 1 Tim. 4.5. means, but onelyonly make them like thus far, that as 1 Tim. 4.5. it signifies lawfully enjoyed, so here, though in a different manner, and from a different reason or cause. And for the concession in the Dispute at Bewdley ▪ my yeilding Mr. Bs. conclusion doth prove that Mr. S. doth here falsely charge mee to say that 1 Tim. 4.5. is meant onelyonly the lawful use of the creature. Nor is it true that I fled to this place to make an exception against the taking the word holy in a religious sense. For neither did I make use of 1 Tim. 4.5. about the sense of the word holy, but the word sanctified, nor do I conceive the word sanctified used in any other then a religious sense, yea I have often said that [sanctified] 1 Cor. 7.14. is taken for religiously sanctified, as 1 Cor. 6.11. as baptised, 1 Cor. 10.2. p. 639mother, Mark 3.35. dead, Heb. 11.12. made himself Eunuch, Matth. 19.12. son, Exod. 2.9. and many more places, the words are taken in their proper notion, onelyonly they are applied in a limited sense, or in some respect by an impropriety or abuse of speech to those to whom absolutely and in propriety or exactness of speech they do not belong, and therefore this which Mr. S. here suggests of me is but his calumny which he was willing to take up that through my sides he might wound the truth.

But Mr. S. adds. The Apostle saith first, Every creature which God hath made is good in it self, and none to be refused: that is, all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution as formerly: But then he goes higher, speaking of a religious use of outward things, they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer; they are all good and lawfull in their use to every man; but they are onelyonly sanctified by these holy means, the Word and Prayer. And he might have as well said, that the Word and Prayer are not holy means, but onelyonly lawfull to be used; as that the sanctification which is by the word and prayer, is to make the creatures onelyonly lawfull to be used. If a wicked man ea… his meat without seeking a blessing on it, or giving thanks, will any one say that he hath not a lawfull use of the creature? but any man may say, it's not sanctified to him. The Apostle in these 2 ver. goes on gradatim by degrees, from a lawfull use to a holy use of the creatures; All is good and may be used, but they are sanctified by the word and prayer. Thus you see the nature of this priviledged place.

Answ. What word it is which is meant 1 Tim. 4:5. whether the word of Gods power creating them, which the words v. 3. which God hath created for receiving seem to lead to, or the word of Gods declaration, whether by our Lord Christ, Mark 7.15. or to Peter, Acts 10.15. or promise of blessing, it is manifest that the Apostle in that place doth not make any distinction between a sanctified and a lawfull use, nor doth he say they are created for any to be received but with thanksgiving of them who believe and know the truth; nor doth he make the creature good or not to be refused but being received with thanksgiving, nor sanctified but by the word of God and prayer: Nor do I find but that interpreters take lawfull use and sanctified for the same. So Beza in his Annot. It is made holy, to wit, in respect of us, so as that we may use it with a good conscience▪ as duly received from the hand of God. For other men do enjoy it no otherwise then as thieves and sacriledgious persons goods usurped. And he lawfully useth goods, who acknowledgeth and invocat…th the giver of them after his word. Piscat. anal. He minds which is the lawfull and allowed use of meats, to wit, when we receive them with thanksgiving and prayer proceeding from faith▪ Diodati, Dicson, and others speak to like purpose. Nor is there any thing here that intimates any gradation from a lawfull use v. 3, 4. to a sanctified use v. 5. For v. 3, 4. to the receiving of them thanksgiving is required of them that believe and know the truth, and the creature is not said to be good and nothing to be refused but being taken with thanksgiving, which is the same with sanctified by the word and prayer, v. 5. and v. 5. is a reason of that which is said v. 4. and therefore no gradation or rising higher, as Mr. S. imagines▪ p. 640Which I do not produce to shew that I conceive no distinction between a lawful use and a holy use of things (which I do acknowledge in the first part of this Review p. 114. and elsewhere) but onelyonly to shew how insufficiently Mr. S. opposeth me, whom he so severely censures, even in that which I spake rightly enough, and his own blindness made him to judge hardly of me, as left by God to blindness.

Mr. S. saith further, But the main place Mr. T. alledgeth for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful, is that 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. Here uncleanness is taken, saith he, for fornication, and holiness for chastity. To which I answer with Mr. M. that chastity among the heathens is never called sanct…fication, but among believers it is, being a part of the new crea…i…n, and one branch and part of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God. And though Mr. T. sai…h this is but a shift, yet he shall see it demonstrative, if he observe the phrases in the text, and the nature of sanctification: in the 1 and 2. v. the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk and to please God according to the rules of Jesus Christ; and he urgeth it in v. 3 with this; It's the will of God, even your sanctification, that is, that you should walk in all holiness, sutable to the blessed rules of the Gospel, and as one part and expression of holiness, to abstain from sin: And he instanceth specially in fornication, which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles: so that if you view the place you shall find, that 1. He speaks of sanctification in general, in it's full latitude v. 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God; This is the will of God, even your sanctification; that is, it is Gods command, and Gods delight to see you sanctified: then he brings in abstinence from fornication (the sin of the times) as one part of that holiness God requires: For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification, or in mortification, which for distinctions sake we we may call the two parts of sanctification. Now chastity in it self, as in the heathens and natural men, is not properly a part of sanctification; some other Epi…hite becomes it better: would Mr. T. call all the abstinencies and actings of the heathens by the name of sanctifications, and speak like a Christian and a Divine? Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit (when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity) sanctified Socrates, holy Aristides? And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among heathens, in such a high Gospel dialect as sanctification is appropriated always in Scripture to God, Angels, Saints, and their highest graces and workings, and to things raised above common use, dedicated to God and his service, but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness? How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common, if that sense should be admitted, contrary to the Scripture use of the word? But that is a weak cause that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain.

Answ. It's the property of some persons, like Thersites in Homer, to speak much and to performe little, and so it befals Mr. S. here. He saith, 1. I alledge 1 Thes. 4.3, 4, 7. as the main place for holiness to be used p. 641for what is barely civil or lawfull, whereas I alledge it not as Mr. S. saith, but to shew that it is not true which Mr. M. said, that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense, for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses. 2. Though I say, Mr. Ms. answer to be but a shift, yet I shall see it demonstrative, if I observe the phrases in the Text, and the nature of sanctification. But if all should be yeelded, that 1 Thes. 4.3, 4▪7. holiness were but a part of the new creation, that chastity in heathens is never called sanctification; yet this were but a shift to avoid the proof against Mr. Ms. assertion, that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses; for the chastity of regenerate persons, confessed to be term…d holiness and a part of sanctification, is not taken in a sacred sense for separation from common to sacred uses: But of this more may be seen in the first part of this Review, sect. 12. pag. 108. And as for Mr. Ss. reasoning, it is far from demonstrative, it being indeed against himself. For if v. 1, 2. be an exhortation to please God in general, and v 3. express one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin, and no other sin be named but fornication, he doth particularly term abstaining from fornication holiness; which is more fu…ly confirmed v. 4. where chastity is termed possessing our vessel in holiness and honour, opposite to possessing our vessel (that is our body) in the lust of concupiscence as the Gentiles, among whom fornication was frequent, and this is v. 7. termed uncleanness, and the opposite to it holiness, that is chastity. And for the other thing, that chastity in it self as in the heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification, and that sanctity is ascribed to the highest things, it is but frivolous. For though it be no part of true sanctification, yet it may be termed holiness, as there be many called Gods who are not the true and everliving God, to whom though the term [God] do properly belong onelyonly, yet Magistrates and Angels are sometimes termed Gods without any debasement, and though I would not in my pulpit without distinction term Magistrates, Angels Gods, or call an unlawfull assembly of Idolaters a Church, yet who knows not the term Elohim, and Ecclesia or Church to be applied to them? So that however Mr. S. prattle of his demonstration and of the weakness of my cause and extraordinary shifts, yet this is but frivolous talk without any performance.

He adds. But to go on a little further; The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches; foreign to the Saints or holy ones at Rome, at Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, &c. which when appropriated to persons, always signifies a visible Saint: So here when he calls children of believing parents holy, he cannot but mean, they are to be accounted as visible Saints, until they do profess the contrary: and I know no reason can be given, why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles, when he writes foreign, to the Saints, should not be as well understood written onelyonly to the legitimate, and those that are not bastards a… Rome, Corinth, &c. as well as for them to interpret the same word so in this place: For foreign when applied to grown men, must signifie p. 642visible and Evangelical holiness, and must be translated Saints▪ but when applied to children, it must onelyonly signifie legitimacy, that they are not bastards; when all men know, that magis & minus non variant speciem; and the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament.

Answ. It is not true, that the same term is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches, it is not used in the Epistles to the Galatians and Thessalonians; and in the titles where it is appropriated to persons, signifies a Saint called, sanctified in Christ Jesus, faithfull, which rather note an invisible then a visible Saint: and if they do note a visible Saint, they note one by calling, sanctified in Christ, believer in profession, none of which are to be ascribed to infants of believers as such, nor can be meant 1 Cor. 7.14. where children are termed holy by birth, not by calling; and are not said to be holy in Christ, but in respect of their parents. Whence apparent reason is given, why the term [holy] in the titles of the Epistles cannot be translated legitimate in opposition to bastardy, but Saints, or men who are set apart for God by the love of God, and therefore termed beloved of God, Rom. 1.7. and the sanctification of the spirit by the Gospel: and on the other side, why [holy] 1 Cor. 7.14. cannot be translated Saints, or visible Saints, not for that frivolous conceit of Mr. S. as if they might not be termed Saints 1 Cor. 7.14. for want of age; whose gross application of a Logick rule, shews he was but a smatterer therein: For if visible saintship had been given to elder persons in respect of grown age, and denied to infants, yet there had been no variation of kind from more or less growth, saintship being not the species or kind of such persons, but humanity. And what he saith, that the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament, it is so false a speech, and so ill beco…ming him that said, p. 53. he had compared all the places in the New Testament where the word is used, that no other excuse but of heedlesness or forgetfulness can acquit him from deceit. For besides the places alledged, Luke 2.23. 2 Pet. 1.18. &c. and his own distinctions of federal and inherent holiness, together with the holiness intentional meant Rom. 11.16. shew it to be false.

What he adds, By the same reason we account grown men holy, we may account infants of believers; for these that make a profession, may have no inward and inherent holiness; and a bare profession is not holiness; we onelyonly account them holy by a judicious charity; and we are often deceived, and have cause to repent of our judgements: …nfants may be inwardly sanctified, and God hath taken them into Covenant with their parents, and would have us look on them as separated to himself, which is ground enough to build our charity on, as to esteem them holy, as grown persons. There is no difference but this in it; That concerning the holiness of persons at age, we trust our own judgements; and in judging of infants we trust Gods word, who hath comprehended them under the promise with their parents; there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years, as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith on infants. And Gods promise, though never so indefinite, is a surer ground for hope then p. 643my probable judgement; which is the most I can have of the generality of professors of ripe years, is much of it false, as that God hath taken infants into Covenant with their parents, thay are comprehended under the promise with their parents, God would have us to look on them as separated to himself, by the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers, we onelyonly account them holy by a judicious charity, and all impertinent, forasmuch as professors of faith are accounted visible Saints not by a judgement of charity, but of certainty from their profession which is visible, and so are qualified for Baptism, not from hopes of real holiness, or faith of Covenant holiness, which do not entitle to Baptism without certainty of profession.

What he adds. That holy is a pure religious word, that in my sense it would be no considerable medium for argumentation, that else were, &c. hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue to be in a peculiar state of seperation to God, visible Churchmembers with the believing parent, contains nothing but unproved dictates often before refuted. What he adds of cold comfort in my sense, and of strength and sweetness in his, is alike frovolous. For the speech of the Apostle was to be no otherwise consolatory, then so far as it might satisfie their consciences of the lawfulness of their continuing together, which is clearly done by my Analysis and exposition of the Apostle, and not done at all by his way. For what is a priviledge of the children which perhaps they shall never have; or if they have, it is nothing to take away the defilement by the infidel for satisfaction of their consciences concerning living together in disparity of Religion? I have done with this scribler: I shall a little examine what some others have said; with as much brevity as the maintenance of the truth will permit, and hasten to an end.