Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 12
SECT. XII.
Mr. Marshals first argument against my exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. as meant of Matrimoniall sanctification and holiness from the use of the words [sanctification and holiness] is largely answered.
FIrst Mr. Marshal disputes against my sense of the words thus. Ʋncleanness and holiness when opposed one to another, are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull, but are alwayes used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, and holiness is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use.
Answ. The argument I conceive stands thus. Those terms which are never meant of civilly lawful or unlawful, but are always used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, and holiness is alwayes used for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, cannot be taken for lawfull use of mariage, bastardy or legitimation of children. But uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to the other are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull, but are alwayes used in a sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the Tabernacle or Temple which were types of the visible Church, and holiness (or sanctification) is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from a common to sacred use, Ergo. Hereto I say,
1. That Mr. Marshall doth not prove that the Tabernacle or Temple were Types of the visible Church: its rather plain from John 2. 21. that it was a type of Christs own body; and Heb. 9. 24. the Holy place is made a type of Heaven, and if the Tabernacle or Temple be types of any Church they seem to be types rather of the invisible than visible Church, 1 Peter 2. 5. Nor doth he prove that ever a person is said to be holy for his right of admission into the Tabernacle, though I deny not but persons are called [holy] being admitted to the service of the Tabernacle, from their relation to it; nor doth he prove that ever the word sanctified or holy was used to signifie right of admission into the visible Church, though I deny not but from their admission they are denominated holy; nor do I believe Mr. Marshall can find in Scripture the word sanctified used in his sense, either for being designed, made capable, fitted, or made an instrument to bring forth or beget a holy seed, or the word holy for one that hath right to be admitted to the initiall Seal as he speaks.
2. I deny that the word sanctification or holiness is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, meaning as he doth by sacred use such as is about Gods immediate worship contradistinct from civill matters. I find indeed the words sanctified and sanctifie to note some discretion and distinction from other things by way of exaltation, and p…e-eminence, (except when it is used foreign) as Mr. Mede in his discourse on Mat. 6. 9. observes: but not alwayes relating to Gods immediate worship. The Cities of Refuge are said to be sanctified Jos. 20. 9. yet not to the immediate worship of God, but the preservation of mans life, foreign Act. 21. 24. is meant of the Nazarites vow. See Ainsw. on Num. 6. 2, 3. Diodat. on Numb. 11. 18. Sanctifie your selves] by abstinence and purification of any impurity, corporall or spiritual. The Medes Isai. 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones, yet not for any use about the Tabernacle, or Gods immediate worship, but as the New Annot. (which I am informed were made by Mr. Gataker) men prepared and appointed to execute judgement, Jerem. 51. 27, 28. and 1 Sam. 21. 5. when it is said, The vessels of the young men are holy, if by the vessels be meant the bodies, as the New Annot. expound it, referring to Acts 9. 15. 1 Thess. 4. 4. the holiness there seems to be only a freedom from the company of women. See Ainsworth on Levit. 15. 18.
3. Though sanctification or holiness should be taken for separation of persons or things from common to sacred use, yet by conceiving an Acyrology, or Catachresis, that is impropriety or abuse of speech, the sense might be, as I conceive it most likely, to be thus understood, The unbelieving husband, though an unbeliever, is sanctified, that is, is all one to his wife, in respect of the lawfull enjoyment of him as her husband, as if he were indeed sanctified to God. Piscator observes in his Scholy on the next verse before 1 Cor. 7. 13. Ne eum dimittito, foreign vel foreign, pro ne eum deserito, ne se ab eo separato, ne ab eo discedito, ut locutus est snpra 10. et infra. 15. Grot. annot. ad 1 Cor. 7. 13. foreign hic usurpat de muliere non dur â admodum foreign, quia etiam foreign potest dici foreign. Or nearer to my purpose 1 Cor. 10. 2. when it is said they were baptized, it is as Grot. in his annot. Baptizatisunt, id est quasi baptizati sunt, as if they were baptized. The New Annot. Because they were that unto them in type, which baptism is to us in truth, the Apostle saith by an Analogy, they were baptized unto Moses. Becman. Exercit. Theol. 11. Analogia quadam baptizari dicuntur. As for Mr. Selden desyned. Hebr. l. 1. c. 3. page 42. though he conceive the baptism there to be meant of that which was oppointed by God, Exod. 19. 10. Yet saith it is wont to be understood of a figure of baptism, and as Grotius understood it, and cites Cyprian Ep. 16. Aug. tract. 11. in Joh. Hieron. Epist. 127. which I allege to shew the vanity of Mr. Jo. Goodwins censure beforecited. As for Mr. Ainsworths conceit in his censure on a Dialogue of Anabaptists from Psa. 77. 16, 17, 18. that the Israelites were baptized with water, because the clouds rained then, it is but a conceit. For however that proves nothing for the sea, the Israelites were not washed with it, nor is it said that the clouds poured out rain on the Israelites: but as Junius, Piscator, Mr. Ainsworth himself in his Annot. on Exod. 14. 24. Psal. 77. 18. referre it to the horrible tempest of rain, hall-stones, thunder, lightning which fell on the Egyptians. The Israelites are only said to be baptized by an abuse or impropriety of speech. Which is by the way a sufficient answer to what Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Baillee, Mr. Philips, Mr. Cobbet and others bring from this text to prove Infant-baptism.
4 If sanctification be alwayes taken for separation from common to sacred use, then Mr. Marshals sense of instrumentall sanctification is overthrown. For in his instrumentall sanctification there's no separating of an unbeliever from a common to a sacred use. For in the unbelievers begetting a holy seed is no sacred use, it's as common and as carnall an act as any other he doth that is not in its nature sinfull, neither in the nature of the act, nor intention of the agent having any thing of holiness in it: if the child be holy either internally or externally, it is meerly by an accident to the unbelievers act. Nor doth the faith of the wife sanctifie, that is separate the husband from a common use to a sacred. For then it must be either the presence of faith in her that doth it, or the actuall exercise of it. If the presence or inexistence habitual of faith in the wife do sanctifie the unbelieving husband, then either in the reality of it, or bare profession, if the former be said, then except there be faith in the reality of it, there's no sanctification, if the later, then the bare profession without reality can really sanctifie an unbeliever to produce a holy seed; which is to make a false faith have a real effect. If the exercise of faith only do sanctifie (which Mr. Marshall seems to imbrace, making the sanctification to be in the use in his Sermon) then it sanctifies by some vow, or prayer, or the like, and then the husband is not sanctified instrumentally by the faith of the believing wife, except she exercise such an act; which would make it uncertain to any baptizer, whether there were such a sanctification or separation. If it be said, he is separated in common estimation, then this sanctification is the fruit of common estimation, rather than of the faith of the one party, sith without faith he may be said to be sanctified, but not without this common estimation. I do thus argue to shew how inconsistent Mr. Marshals description of sanctification is with his exposition of sanctification here. And besides the words of Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 2. pag. 5. do in my apprehension plainly make the sanctification here to be by exercise of faith. For he will have this phrase to note not only a lawfull use, but also a holy use as believers, such as is meant 1 Tim. 4. 5. according to that Tit. 1. 15. Prov. 21. 4. which cannot be true of any inchurched professor, but onelyonly of a true believer, and that too onelyonly when true faith is exercised, whence no children will be holy, but those who have one parent a true believer, if this sense be good. But I return to Mr. Marshal.
First, Whereas Mr. Marshall saith uncleanness and holiness when opposed one to ano…her are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull. To this I excepted. Nor do I like the calling it civil holiness or civilly lawfull: for it is not from the laws of men, but the institution of God. I reply, saith Mr. Marshall, this is a poor shift. I answer, it was not used for any shift at all, but to prevent an advantage which my adversary might think to have by an incommodious expression, if it were allowed him. Mr. Marshall goeth on; By holy and civil we distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table. All second table duties are civil things, though their institution be of God: Civil Magistracy though instituted of God; obedience to Parents though instituted of God; and all the judiciall laws given to the Jews about Meum & tuum; Were they not therefore civil because they were Gods institutions? or is marriage a business more concerning religion than these are? is it a sacrament? or how else is it more holy than these other civil things?
Ans. Divines usually distinguish the duties of the two Tables into religious and civil, yet I know not that either they or the Scripture deny civil duties to be a part of holiness: which onelyonly would prove that mariage because belonging to civil duties, is not to be denominated holy. Holiness and Righteousness are not so exactly distinguished, but that they interchangably are applied to duties of both Tables. As for mariage I stick not at the calling of it a civil thing in some sense, as being among men regulated by civil laws, and serving for a civil end; yet considering that Beza, Mr. Marshall and others, use this as a seeming advantage to overthrow my interpretation, urging that according to it the Apostle should resolve the Corinthians conscience from the laws of civil policy, and that mariage being a civil thing, it cannot be termed holy, nor the use of mariage said to be sanctified, nor holy be as much as legitimate; I was willing to prevent that disadvantage. Mr. Marshall would not have mariage called holy, but thinks some inconsistency to be in my phrase of matrimoniall holiness. He asks me Is mariage more holy than other civil things, as Magistracy, obedience to Parents, judiciall laws about meum & tuum? I answer, Though I do not take Mariage or Magistracy to be holy in Mr. Marshalls sense, for a state of separation to religious or sacred use, yet Magistrates being called Gods, and sons of the most high, Psalm 82. 6. even Cyrus is said to be annointed of God, Isa. 45. 1. they are called ministers of God, Rom. 13. 4. it is no strange or absurd thing to term Magistracy or Magistrates holy, or sacred, though a civil thing. And for mariage, besides what I said in my Examen page 77. out of the English Liturgy. Mr. Ralph Cudworth, that of Grotius in Matt. 19. 5. Matrimonium rem esse sacram magno consensu gentes crediderunt, it may be aded, that in Pagnins Thesaurus on the root foreign, it is observed by Mercer that Sponsalia Hebraei à sanctitate & castitate foreign & verbo foreign utuntur pro desponsare; and Illyricus in his Clavis Scripturae voce Sanctus, Mal. 2. 11. videtur sanctum vocari matrimonium sanctum Jehovae, id est matrimonium quod ordinavit & sanctificavit Dominus. The Helvetian Confession ch. 29. makes it a Satanicall doctrine to forbid mariage, quasi non sanctum vel mundum sit. Jewels Apology ch. 8. Divis. 1. We say that matrimony is holy and honourable in all sorts and states of persons: The Augustan Confession cals the Covenant of mariage most holy. The generall Confession of the reformed Churches in Polonia exhibited September 1. 1645. We affirm that Matrimony is holy, and a divine institution. Zanch. in 1 Thes. 4. 4. sunt autem corpora nostra destinata ad sanctum conjugium. Ain…w. on Deut. 24. 5. Holy wedlock. Zuinglius de vera & falsa religione C. de matrimonio, Matrimonium sanctissima res est. Beza himself in his annot. on Mark 10. 9. Other contracts are meerly humane and civil, but mariage is a more Holy thing, and is therefore established in the Assembly it self of the Church the authority of God himself as it were comming between. And indeed our Saviour saith, that God himself join'd the maried, Mark 10. 9. And Solomon calls the mariage Covenant the Covenant of God, Prov. 2. 17. so that however magistracy, obedience to parents, judiciall laws about meum & tuum be of Gods appointment, yet because of Gods speciall institution in Paradise, and not because it was, or is counted a Sacrament in the popish sense, mariage hath gain'd the appellation of holy before other ordinances of things pertaining to the second table. And forasmuch as the Assembly in the Directory for worship (as in like manner other reformed Churches and former people) have thought good to appoint the minister to direct the solemnity of mariage, and impart a mariage blessing, it should me thinks be allowed that mariage in some qualified sense, be rather termed holy than some other civil institutions, concerning which no such direction is given.
Mr. Marshal goes on. You except secondly, Ʋncleanness may be taken for bastardy in allusion to a tabernacle use, bastards being numbred among the unclean. I reply, this is spoken without any proof, for although the Lord saith, Deut. 23. 2. that a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord, it cannot be meant that bastards shall be numbred among the unclear, or having nothing to do about tabernacle or temple services, for there was the same law for Eunuchs, who were not excluded as unclean; no unclean person might eat the Passeover, might no Eunuch nor bastard eat the Passeover? It is needless to enter into a further discourse about that place Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the congregation, whether by the congregation be meant the Sanhedrin as some, or whether his not entring be of bearing office as others, or of not marying a wife an Israelitess as others; it matters not, it's sufficient they were not numbred among the unclean.
Answ. Mr. Marshal had said, uncleanness is alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types of the visible Church, and he had said, that not comming into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 2. is meant only of bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing, and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church. Now hence I inferred uncleanness for bastardy might be taken allusively to the Tabernacle, if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord were an exclusion form the Tabernacle, which I supposed Mr. Marshall would grant of all that were excluded from bearing office in the Church, sith the offices of the Church were executed at the Tabernacle. To which I adde, if unclean be taken allusively to the Tabernacle as a type of the visible Church, much more to the Commonwealth of Israel, sith the congregation or whole people of Israel were a type of the visible Church more expressely than the Tabernacle, as may appear by Gal. 6. 16. Ephes. 2. 12. 1 Pet. 2. 9. Yea Mr. Marshall himself in his Sermon page 19. had mentioned the mungrel kind in Nehem. 13. 24. &c. as accounted unclean, and so to be put away, and the reason of the putting away as unclean is fetcht Nehe. 13. 1. from Deut. 23. 3. in the next verse to which mention is made of putting away a bastard from the congregation of the Lord, and Ezra 9. 2. they are opposed to the holy seed: now the opposite term to holy is unclean, therefore if the mungrels by reason of that law Deut. 23. 3. were not a holy seed, they were unclean, and consequently bastards alike separated from the congregation of the Lord were not a holy seed, but unclean. The New Annot. on Deut. 23. 2. calls bastards a polluted posterity. But Mr. Marshal reasons thus, No unclean person might eat the Passeover, bastards might, therefore they are not reckoned among the unclean. I answer, I find Num. 9. 10. that the unclean that were defiled by a dead body, were not to keep the Passeover in the first monethmonth, but afterwards: and though the Iewish Rabbins do extend it to some other defilements, as Ainsworth in his Annot. on Num. 9 10. yet it is not likely to be extended any further than to transeunt defilements, not to permanent, sith it was not a denying of the Passeover but for a time. Therefore if there be such a law that no unclean person might eat the Passeover (which I have not found yet in those words) it is to be understood, not of all unclean persons in any sort, but of such as were accidentally and transeuntly made unclean for some dayes or moneths. It is a mistake, which Mr. Marshals reasoning supposeth, that a person was denominated unclean only by reason of defilement removing from the Passeover. There were sundry moral and legal uncleannesses among the Iews, for which a person was not to be kept from the Passeover. Salmasius ad Colrium page 587. Lex Mosis immundos dixit, qui alieni sexus uterentur vestibus. Deut. 22. 5. Levit. 21. 14. For the High-Priest to marry a widow had been to defile him, yet not to keep him from the Passeover. The like v. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Whatever the exclusion were from the congregation of the Lord, it was for some uncleanness that bastards were excluded, and therefore they were reckoned among the unclean, which is enough for my purpose. Besides, saith Mr. Marshall, when you thus construe else were your children unclean, you make there a bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles, consequently every unclean child must be a bastard; Now if any man would suppose, that bastards might be reckoned among the unclean, yet all unclean children must not be reckoned amongst bastards; all the children of the Gentils, were unclean, yet they were not bastards.
I answer, my words plainly shew the conrrary to that which Mr. Marshall here obtrudes upon me. I do not say bastards were the only unclean, but were numbred among the unclean, therefore I conceived other sorts of unclean persons than bastards. Nor is there a word in my Examen or any where else in my writings, wherein I make a bastard and unclean to be termini convertibiles. Yea, but you construe, Else were your children unclean, thus, else were they bastards. Answ. Be it so; how doth this follow that therefore I make every unclean person a bastard? Doth he that saith with the Apostle, to distribute is a sacrifice, inferre therefore every sacrifice is to distribute? or he that saith fornication is uncleanness, say, every uncleanness is fornication.
This is a slip of Mr. Marshals pen through inconsiderateness, or his and my logick are not the same.
But saith Mr. Geree, bastards were not unclean in that sense, when the Apostle wrote this, and therefore the Apostle would not express bastardy by a word that was so obsolete, that the use of it was unwarrantable.
Answ. 1. Bastards were unclean in that sense when the Apostle wrote this among the Iews, who still conceived the Law of Moses in that sense to bind them.
2. If this reason were good, that because bastards were not unclean to Christians, therefore the Apostle would not use a word allusively to a Iewish use abolished, then neither would he use the worde unclean and holy in allusion to a Tabernacle use in Mr. Marshals sense, for that was abolished to Christians; so that this reason is as much against Mr. Marshall as me.
3. When Mr. Geree saies that the Apostle would not use an obsolete word, that the use of it was unwarrantable, if he mean by unwarrantable that the use of a word is unwarrantable because obsolete, he insinuates a strange position, as if the using an obsolete word were unwarrantable, and so sinfull, which how he will make good I know not: sure they that use Plautus, Ennius, Chancers, and others obsolete words may be taxed perhaps as offending against Priscia…s rules, but I do not imagine they offend against Gods law. If he mean that the Apostle would not use a word that alludes to an obsolete use of the Iews unwarrantable to Christians, besides that it is to mee a new notion of an obsolete word to call that an obsolete word which alludes to a custom grown out of use, whereas I alwayes took that to be an obsolete word which is grown out of use among modern persons, the position of Mr. Gerce in that sense is palpably false, for in the same Epistle 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8. and else-where frequently Rom. 12. 1. Philip. 2. 17. & 4. 18. &c. he useth such allusive words: yea the holy writers in the New Testament throughout do usually speak with Hebraisms, and with allusions to the customs of the Iews, as Mr. Gataker hath fully proved in his Exercitation against Pfochenius.
Thirdly, saith Mr. Marshall, you referre me to the 1 Thess. 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness but unto holiness, and desire me to tell whether uncleanness be not there meant of fornication, and by holiness chastity.
Answ. Mr. Marshal sets not down for what purpose I referred him to that text, though I expressed my self plainly that I opposed the texts against his two positions, 1. About the use of the word uncleanness, of which he affirmed that when uncleanness is opposed to holiness, it is alwayes taken in a sacred sense, referring to a Tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types of the visible Church. Against this assertion I opposed, 1 Thes. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 7. 1. 2. That holiness is alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use. Against this I opposed 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4. 1 Cor. 7. 34. Let us see what Mr. Marshall replies hereto. I answer, saith he, I prevented this in my Sermon, and shewed that chastity among the heathen is never called sanctification. The holy Spirit onelyonly is the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of the heathens are not the Temples of the holy Ghost: but among believers it may be called so, because it is a part of the new Creation, a part of the inward adorning of the Holy Ghost, and though the Chastity of believers is only a morall vertue in respect of the object, yet in respect of the root, principle, end, it's a Christian vertue, and its an act of oure religion to keep a mans self unspotted from the flesh, as well as from the world, Iam. 1. 27.
Answ. 1. Mr. Marshall in all this, and that which follows, answers not a word to my allegation of 1 Thess. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 7. 1. against his first position, where plainly uncleanness opposed to holiness is taken for fornication, and so not in a sacred sense allusive to Tabernacle, or Temple, right, or use.
2. All this discourse, in which he spends many words as if he were preaching not disputing, is to prove that chastity among the heathens is never called sanctification, and his reason is because it is not an effect of Gods sanctifying Spirit. To which I answer. The position may have two senses, one that chastity is never called holines by heathens, and of that I shall say somewhat anon. The other, that the chastity of heathens is never called sanctification or holiness.
This sense he seems to intend: But grants it may be so called in believers, which is enough for my purpose to overthrow his position, and reasoning. For if that be true which he grants, it will follow, that holiness is not always taken for a separation of persons, or things from common to sacred use, for in the chastity of a believer is not such a separation. Let any man tell me what sacred use a chast believing woman is separated for, in that she is chast, more than an unbelieving chast woman. Besides, when Mr. Marshall reasons that [holiness or sanctified] cannot be taken for Matrimonially lawfull, because mariage is a civill thing, no business of religion, a second table duty, these reasons are as well against the mariage and chastity of a believer, as an unbeliever, and therefore if they prove, that holiness cannot be taken for chastity in an unbeliever, they will prove it cannot be so taken in a believer, contrary to Mr. Marshals concession.
2. Mr. Marshals reason to prove that chastity in a heathen cannot be called holiness, because the person is not truly sanctified, is vain. For vis et norma, the rule and measure of words, and their sense, is use, as Horat. de arte poetica: nor is the use of words alwayes according to speciall reason, but ex placito, as pleased the users or beginners. Otherwise no reason can be given why from foreign the same root should com a nown signifying a Saint and a whore, foreign should signifie to bless and to curse foreign, a crime, thing polluted, and a pious fact, foreign, a medicine, and a poyson, sacer, holy and detestable, with many more the like. It is sufficient, that uncleanness doth plainly signifie fornication, and then holiness opposite to it must signifie chastity, for terms standing in direct opposition must have opposite senses. Besides Mr. Marshals reason supposing no vertue could be called holiness, but what comes from the Spirit of sanctification, is thus to be formed. That which comes not from the Spirit of sanctification cannot be called holiness, the chastity of an unbeliever comes not from the Spirit of sanctification, Ergo: If the major be good, it will overthrow Mr. Marshals own interpretation of federall holiness, which according to him comes not from the Spirit of sanctification, sith it may agree to children who neither themselves nor parents were ever truly sanctified. If it be said the Apostle will not call that holiness which is not, besides the falsity of it, that holiness is never meant but of saving holiness, it is against the frequent use of Scripture and other authors, that call the faith of hypocrites by the name of faith, the vertues of heathens by the names that signifie such vertues, the righteousness of the Pharisees by the name of righteousnes: though they be not in truth that which they are called.
Mr. Marshal goes on. Besides, I now adde there is no reason that that place 1 Thess. 4. should be restrained to fornication, because many other sins are named in that place besides fornication. Mark the words in the third verse, the Apostle tells them, that the will of God is their sanctification that every one should abstein from fornication, that no man go beyond, and defraud his brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a reason common to all the particulars, because God hath not call'd us to uncleanness, but to holiness: so that by holiness there is meant not only chastity but justice also; and what kind of consequence were there in such an argument, let no man go beyond his brother in bargaining, because God hath not called us to fornication, but to chastity?
Answ. If holiness notes not only chastity, but justice also, then holiness may be taken for that which is civilly lawfull, a second table duty, and is not alwayes used in a sacred sense alluding to a right of admission into, or use in the Tabernacle or Temple which were types of the visible Church: nor is holiness alwayes taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred use: but for a second table duty, which is civilly lawfull, not only for chastity but also for justice, contrary to his former assertions. So that after much cavilling he is forced at last to yield that which I produced the text for, that holiness is taken for chastity. As for his dispute that holiness is not restrained to chastity, it hurts not me, who did not say it noted only chastity. Nevertheless I know not how to understand holiness in the 4th verse of any other vertue than chastity, when the Apostle saith, that every one of you know how to possess his vessel in holiness and honour. Sure most of the interpreters I have met with restrain it to Chastity. Piscator in his Scholie on 1 Thess. 4. 4. is expresse, Hic Nomen foreign accipitur specialiter de castitate, ut liquet ex anti…hesi.
The Comment ascribed to Hierom, suum corpus unusquis{que} castum servando sanctificet et honoret; Illyricus in his clavis Scripturae on the word sanctus, Aliquando haec novae obedientiae sanctificatio ad solam castitatem restringitur, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. 1 Tim. 2. 15. Revet. in Exod. 20. 13. Castitas 1. ad Thess. 4. v. 4. aptissimo nomine vocatur foreign, & Gal. 5. v. 22. foreign; Beza, Zanch. Grot. referre us to that which is 1 Cor. 6. 18. Rom. 1. 24. which shew they took the sense to be, to possess our bodies in chastity. And according to them that by his own vessel understand his own wife, as Aug. de nupt. c. 8. which Heinsius in his Exercit. confirms from 1 Pet. 3. 7. and otherwayes, it is much more plain, that holiness is referred to chast copulation in opposition to adultery, and such like uncleanness. And though I did not in my Examen restrain holiness v. 7. to chastity, as Mr. Marshall seems to construe my words, yet there want not learned men who restrain the holiness there to chastity: yea after Chrysostom, Theodoret, the greek Scholiast, Diodati, Daniel Heinsius in his Exercit. on the New Testament lib. 13. c. 2. doth largely dispute the thing, and determines that going beyond v. 6. is going beyond the bounds of marriage, and defrauding the brother is by adultery, as David did Ʋriiah. But if it be granted that the going beyond and defrauding is in respect of goods, yet the Apostles consequence may be good, let no man defraud his brother in bargaining, for God is the avenger of such things, and let a man possess his vessel v. 4, 5. because God hath called us to holiness, that is to chastity. v. 7.
For it is not alwayes necessary that the reason should be understood as referring to that which is next to it: instances may be given to the contrary in which is inversion of order, as 1 Cor. 7. 16. is a reason to perswade to the resolution v. 13. 1 Tim. 5. 24. is a reason of the precept, v. 22. not of that which comes between as Diodati observes. Dr. Hammond in his treatise of the power of the keys makes it frequent. And before him Illyricus in his tract of Schemes in the Scriptures.
Mr. Marshal goes on. Whereas you allege Beza thus interpreting this text v. 3. This is the will of God even your sanctification i. e. saith Beza, that you abstein from fornication, and upon this (id est) you build much, therefore I shall consider it. Sir id est put in by Beza, hath reference not only to that which doth immediately follow, namely that you abstein from fornication: but to the 6. verse also, that no man go beyond and defraud his brother. Beza saith, id est ut abstineatis, ut ne quis opprimat et habeat quaestui. It being ordinary to have instances given in the second table, when the duties of the first table are principally intended; that the Holy Ghost might meet with hypocrits, who are apt to put all their holiness in outward performances. Yea Beza in the same place in his Annotations upon the word foreign referres him to John 17. 17. and his note upon John 17. 17. is this, sanctum autem dicitur quod Dco peculiariter devotum ac consecratum est; an expression agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and therefore Beza addeth, est autem hoc vocabulum profectum ab Hebraeis: so that by Beza we are brought back to the notion of devoting and consecrating things to God.
Answ. That which I build on Beza's id est was onelyonly this, that holiness is not always taken for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses, as Mr. Marshall affirmed. And that truly follows from Beza's id est. For though he comprehend also oppression and defrauding v. 6. under holiness v. 3. yet he doth also comprehend under holiness as a branch or part of it the abstaining from fornication, v. 3. the possessing the vessel in holiness and honour v. 4. not in the lust of concupiscence, v. 5. which are enough to prove that chastity is a part of holiness and that holiness is not alwayes put for a duty of the first table, or for a separation from common to sacred uses.
If that which is added by Mr. Marshall tend to this, that these duties of the second table are not brought as branches or parts of holiness, but as properties of a holy man, and so make the instances here like that of James 1. 27. I answer, The matter there is not like to this; it is true Iames chap. 1. 27. as likewise chap. 2. 14. &c. doth of purpose apply himself to discover an hypocrite by his unmercifulness, but here the Apostle makes it his business to direct and mind them how to walk answerably to their calling v. 1. 2. 7. and accordingly tells them that the will of God was their sanctification, and instances wherein it consists, to which Beza puts in id est, than which a plainer expression cannot be to shew those to be branches or parts of the Commandement concerning holiness, and not properties or adjuncts onelyonly of a holy person. As for the referring us to John 17. 17. by Beza, there is nothing either in that text or Beza's annotation on it to prove Mr. Marshals position, or disprove my allegation of 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. against it. It is true, he saies that is holy which is peculiarly devoted and consecrated to God, but he doth nor say that nothing is called holy, but what is thus devoted and consecrated, and when he saith that the words [holy and sanctifie] come from the Hebrew, how little advantage that gives to Mr. Marshall for his position, and how much to the contrary, hath been shewed already.
Mr. Marshall proceeds. But you yet endeavour further, and turn and wind the words every way, and run over all words that are of the same tribe or kinred foreign, because you cannot find foreign among the heathen, and in the end you have found an instance in Stephanus Thesaurus where foreign signifies Castimoniam servo (I am chast.)
Answ. I know not what Mr. Marshal calls turning and winding words every way, or the running over all the words that are of the same tribe or kinred. This I did: I enquired as much as my time and means would permit about the use of the word foreign among the heathen, because Mr. Marshall said chastity among heathen is never calld sanctification; which might have this sense, that the heathens never called chastity foreign or sanctification. And this I thought necessary for examining Mr. Marshalls position about the words [uncleanness and holiness.] And I alleged (not as Mr. Marshall miscites my words foreign, but) foreign, comming from the same root, with foreign, as used for holiness and chastity very frequently, both in Scripture and all sorts of Greek Authors. And put in the margine Grot. Annot. in Mat. 5. 8. solent pro eodem usurpari foreign et foreign. And if it had then occurred, I should have added this of George Pasor in his Lexic. in voce foreign castus, 1 Thess. 5. 26. foreign, osculo sancto, hoc est casto. Now to this nothing is said by Mr. Marshall but only to the allegation of the verb foreign which Stephanus renders castimoniam servo, and confirms it out of Demosthenes, against which Mr. Marshall speaks thus.
But first Stephanus speaks but doubtingly, he puts in videtur, which you leave out.
I answer, I have not now Stephanus to examine this, but Scapula his abbreviator in voce foreign hath foreign, item castimoniam servo, and I might be allowed to cite Stephanus as he doth.
Mr. Marshall adds, Besides, foreign is usually meant foreign, So Suidas.
Answ. Be it so, yet that it is used at any time for castimoniam servo is enough for my purpose.
He addes, and the very instance which you from Stephanus have brought out of Demosthenes makes directly against you. For the Priest saith, I offer sacrifice, and I am in case to do it, for I am pure from the company of man, foreign, and all other things which might pollute me: that is I am holy according to my order, and therefore fit to do my office. These last words which give the full sense of the place, you have (not very fairly) left out of your quotation.
Answ. Whether [foreign] be to be rendred [I am chast] as Stephanus and Scapula, or [I offer sacrifice] as Mr. Marshall, I cannot well judge, having not that oration of Demosthenes to peruse. My allegation of that passage was upon Stephanus his credit which is very great for his exact skill in the Greek. That I left out some words serving to give the full sense of the place, was done fairly by me, sith being put in, as they would not have furthered my purpose, so neither do they hinder it: but still it appears, that Chastity among heathens was reputed to have something of holiness, which this place confirms, in that the Priest counts her self holy, and fit to offer sacrifice, because she was clean, and chast or pure, as from other defilements, so from the company of man. Which shews the company of men was counted to have somewhat of uncleanness, and chastity of holiness. Which conceit is agreeable to what we find in Scripture, Exod. 19. 15. 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5. Grot. in Exod. 19. 15. Pars haec sanctificationis. 1 Sam. 21. 5. 1 Cor. 7. 5.
Mr. Marshall proceeds. Yet you make another supplement out of 1 Cor. 7. 34. That she may be holy in body and spirit, and demand whether the meaning be not that she may be chast. I answer, the plain meaning is that she being free from worldly distractions is at more liberty to give her self wholly to godliness, than others can, who have these wordly avocations: and in truth it is a pretty odde sense which you have invented of this place, the unmaried cares for the things of God that she may be chast; but she that is maried cares for things of the world how she may please her husband. I wonder what learned man concurs with you in this? I doubt in this rare interpretation you are all alone.
Answ. All I said was this; And when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7. 34. that she may be holy in body, is it not meant that she may be chast? not to make any supplement as if there were a defect in the tex…s alleged, but because I thought that holiness there had been opposed to sin, as 2 Cor. 7. 1. and then chastity had been a part of holiness of body.
But I stand not upon this place, conceiving Mr. Dicksons observation to be right, that holiness is opposed not to sin, but to civil and common, and so holiness of the body is restrained to praising of God and such like holy exercises of the body. Yet because Mr. Marshal puts me to it, I might tell him that the Commentary among Hieroms hath this note, sancta corpore ac usu conjugali, which is by chastity or continence, and that sanctity notes a separation of the body from conjugall use, and a separation of the spirit from worldly cares, as well as dedication of both to God. And Rivet. in Exod. 20. 13. applies it to chastity. But there's no need to make use of this text, holiness being so manifestly used for chastity, 1 Thess. 4. 4.
Mr. Marshall adds. When I added that even the meat and drink of believers sanctified to them serves for a religious end and use to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost; You answer me, it seems in eating and drinking they do an act of Religion; to which, I need no other reply than your next words, that they are sanctified to them by the word and prayer, they receiving them after an holy manner with faith, supplication and thanksgiving, &c. And that this place of Timothy doth hold out more than a lawfull use is most apparent, because it is such a use of the Creatures, as the heathens had not, who yet had a lawful use of the Creatures; and it is such a use as is appliable onelyonly to believers, and such a use as is procured by the word and prayer; and although wicked men do not do an act of religion in feeding the bodies of the Saints, because all their actions are unclean; yet believers have an holy use of those Creatures which heathens feed them with, having the word not only to warrant the use of them, but prayer to procure Gods blessing to that end for which they eat and drink, which is to live to God.
Answ. Had Mr. Marshall dealt rightly, he had set down my words, which were, Is it a religious end and use to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost? (as Mr. Marshals words in his Sermon plainly imported.) Then the Godly in eating and drinking do an act of religion, because they refresh themselves. And after, If refreshing the Temple of the Holy Ghost be a religious use and end, then the inordinate eating of a godly man, or the feeding of a godly man by a profane person, is a religions use and end; wherein the thing I excepted against was not that which Mr. Marshall spends words unnecessarily to prove, though I expressely granted it in my Examen page 81. that the meats and drinks of believers sanctified to them, serve for a religious end and use, so that they have not only a lawfull but a holy use of their meat and drink, which unbelievers have not: but this I excepted against, that Mr. Marshall makes it a religious use and end to refresh them who are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, from whence the absurdities I inferred follow, Nor hath Mr. Marshall a word in his reply to evade them.