A Christian, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. That ſpecial place in 1 Cor. 7.14. opened, and argued; Elſe were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.
THIS place of Scripture, though it ſeems to ſtand by it ſelf, yet hath full correſpondence and harmony with all other places in the N. T. concerning this truth. As the former did hold forth the promiſe, the Covenant to Believers and their Children, in diſtinction from all the world: ſo doth this leave a character of ſpecial qualifications ſutable to a ſubject of ſuch an Ordinance; and when the promiſe and the qualification ſhall meet together, there is enough for to capacitate to any Ordinance.
The Apoſtle is in this verſe anſwering a ſcruple which might ariſe in the hearts of the Corinthians concerning abiding together of married perſons; the one being a Convert, and a Believer; the other, whether man or woman, an Unbeliever; as it was a common caſe in the Apoſtles times, the Husband might be converted, the Wife not; and the Wife converted, and not the Husband; the Word working on the one, not on the other: this begat a doubt in the believing Party, whether he or ſhe might with a good conſcience live together in that ſtate.
The Apoſtle anſwers it, ver. 12, 13. poſitively, That they ought not to ſeparate, or leave each other, notwithſtanding that the one was an Unbeliever: And he gives in this ver. 14. a ſtrong and peculiar argument, which he makes inſtar omnium; for the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified in the believing Wife, &c. Elſe were your Children unclean, but now they are holy.
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 à 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.
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 Beza 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 only 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 Apoſtle would never have made an argument of four terms, when three could only ſatisfie; for all know, that an argument with four terms is moſt deceitful and falſe.
2. 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 and things, in relation to God and his uſe.
And the Apoſtle uſeth two terms, both negative and affirmative; they are not unclean, but holy; the opening of the uſe of which two words will clear the point under conſideration.
The word here (foreign) unclean, in the Old Teſtament, is commonly uſed for thoſe legal pollutions and uncleanneſſes which made men to be ſeparated from the Congregation, and excommunicated from the priviledge of Ordinances, until they were waſhed and ſanctified: Thus in Levit. 5.2, 3, 4. Chap. 7.19. & 14.7, 8. Iſa. 52.1. Hag. 2.13. with many other places, where unclean is oppoſed to a preſent ſutable capacity for Church-priviledges: But that famous place in Acts 10.14. ſhews it moſt clear what the proper uſe of this word is; he joyns it there with what is common or prophane: When the viſion came to him of eating all ſorts of Creatures, he ſaith, Not ſo Lord; for I have not eaten any thing that is common or unclean (foreign) This viſion was about his going to Cornelius to open the Goſpel to him, and bring him into the Church who was a Gentile, and ſo common and unclean, not fit for Goſpel-priviledges, as the Jews were thought to be. Now in a civil ſenſe things that are common are not unclean; but in a religious ſenſe, what is common is adjudged unclean: Now Cornelius being a Gentile, without the pale of the Jewiſh Church, he cals him common and unclean, as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promiſe: but God anſwered, What God hath clenſed, or ſanctified, call not thou common: Cornelius was not a Baſtard, nor unlawfully begotten; but he was not accounted a fit member, he was without the Church; therefore the Apoſtle cals him common and unclean: 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: But that is not all, but he poſitively ſaith they are (holy) foreign; not only foreign, not unclean: And this latter word is moſt uſed to expreſs the Hebrew word foreign, which ever ſignifies what is uſui Divino accommodatum, that which is appropriated to a Divine uſe; which is the proper notion of holineſs in the Old and New Teſtament, and never taken otherwiſe: For the proof of which, I have compared above three hundred places in the Old Teſtament according to the Septuagint, and all the N. T. places where the word is uſed. And this all do grant, even Mr. Tombes himſelf, that the word generally is taken in Scripture to expreſs a ſeparation of things to God, and he only brings theſe places wherein he thinks there is another uſe of it. 1 Tim. 4.5. Every Creature of God is good, and not to be refuſed, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is ſanctified by the Word and Prayer (foreign) Hence, ſaith he, is meant only 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 & ſanctified, alwaies uſed in a religious ſenſe, ſhould fly to this place to make an exception. 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 lawful in their uſe to every man: but they are only 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 only lawful to be uſed; as that the ſanctification which is by the Word and Prayer, is to make the Creatures only lawful to be uſed. If a wicked man eat his meat without ſeeking a bleſſing on it, or giving thanks, will any one ſay that he hath not a lawful 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 lawful 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.
But the main place Mr. Tombes alledgeth for holineſs to be uſed for what is barely civil or lawful, is that 1 Theſ. 4.3, 4, 7. This is the will of God, your ſanctification, that you abſtain from fornication, and let every one poſſeſs his veſſel in ſanctification and honour; for God hath not called us to uncleanneſs, but holineſs. Here uncleanneſs is taken, ſaith he, for fornication, and holineſs for chaſtity.
To which I anſwer with Mr. Marſhal, That chaſtity among the Heathens is never called ſanctification, but among Believers it is, being a part of the new Creation, and one branch and part of their ſanctification wrought by the Spirit of God. And though Mr. Tombes ſaith 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, & 2. ver. 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 Ieſus Chriſt; and he urgeth it in ver. the 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 its full latitude, ver. 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 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 Epithite becomes it better: Would Mr. Tombes 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 alwaies 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 caſe that puts men to ſuch extraordinary ſhifts to maintain.
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, alwaies ſignifies a viſible Saint: So here, when he cals 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 only to the legitimate, and thoſe that are not baſtards at 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 viſible and Evangelical holineſs, and muſt be tranſlated Saints: but when applied to Children, it muſt only 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.
Ob. If any ſhall be ſo critical as Mr. Tombes is, to enquire how they can be ſaid to be holy: what holineſs is here meant, whether inherent, or imputative, or viſible?
Sol. I anſwer, It's a holineſs of ſpecial ſeparation to God, and his uſe, as a peculiar people: Some call it a federal holineſs, from the ground of the priviledge; others an Eccleſiaſtical, or Church holineſs, from the account and eſteem the Church ought to have of ſuch Children: but the firſt more fully anſwers the largeſt uſe of the word in Scripture. As for Infants,
1. They are capable of inherent holineſs.
2. They are in Covenant, as we have proved, and ſo have a holy relation on them.
3. They are capable of ſeparation to Gods uſe from the womb, and ſo of being holy to God.
4. By the ſame reaſon we account grown men holy, we may account Infants of believers holy; for theſe that make a profeſſion, may have no inward and inherent holineſs; and a bare profeſſion is not holineſs; we only account them holy by a judicious charity; and we are often deceived, and have cauſe to repent of our judgements: Infants may be inwardly ſanctified, and God hath taken them into the 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 and charity on Infants. And Gods promiſe, though never ſo indefinite, is a ſurer ground for hope, then my probable judgement; which is the moſt I can have of the generality of Profeſſors of riper years.
Q. But if any one ſay further, What is this to Baptiſm? here is no mention of it in this place.
Sol. It's true, Baptiſm is not mentioned here; but here is mention of a qualified ſubject for Baptiſm, which is all that is contended for: And if the Apoſtle had ſaid they were believers, then theſe of the contrary opinion would conclude, here is enough for Baptiſm; but it's all one, in that he cals them holy, which you ſee is more then legitimate; and you may tranſlate it with as much propriety, Elſe were your Children impure, but now they are Saints; that is, ſo to be eſteemed through Gods Covenant, as if they had profeſſed their own faith.
Laſtly, As it would be moſt abſurd to imagine the Apoſtle ſhould uſe a pure religious word to expreſs a common and ordinary priviledge: ſo there would be no conſiderable medium for augmentation in that ſenſe, and no ſuch force in foreign (elſe were, &c.) which hath force from the ſpecialneſs of the priviledge to their iſſue, not only to be lawfully begotten, as the Children of unbelievers are, when lawfully married: but to be in a peculiar ſtate of ſeparation to God, and to be accounted fit members with the believing Parent of the viſible Church of Chriſt.
And what a poor and cold anſwer, as to comfort, would it be, when the believer was ſcrupled about abiding with his or her unbelieving yoke-fellow, to tell them, Continue together; for your Children ſhall not be Baſtards: but how full of ſtrength and ſweetneſs muſt it be, if taken in the contrary ſenſe? Remain with your yoke-fellows, though unbelievers; they are ſanctified to you, and you ſhall notwithſtanding bring forth a holy ſeed; a ſeed of God, as the Old Teſtament expreſſion; in Covenant, as if you were both believers: this ſounds like a medium moſt demonſtrative and conſolatory, both for ſatisfaction and comfort: What plainer teſtimonie, or fairer character can be written to ſhew the qualification of Infants of believers, then to write them holy, and give them the ſame name that is given to Chriſt, and Saints in Heaven and Earth?