Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 13
SECT. XIII
The 6th and 7th of Mr. Marshals additional arguments about the words [sanctified and holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14.] are answered.
I think it most convenient for elucidation of this point to answer here Mr. Marshalls 6th. and 7th. additional arguments page 155. 156. of his defence, as being about the use of the words [sanctified and holy.]
Secondly, saith Mr. Marshall, my second I take from your own words page 73. where you say, the sanctification of the unbeliever here is such a sanctification as is parallel to 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the Creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer, therefore there must be more meant than the heathens are capable of, therefore another sanctification than Matrimoniall sanctification, for that the heathens had: if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, it must be a sanctification peculiar only to believers.
Answ. Mr. Marshall misrecites my words, and mistakes my meaning, I do not say in the place he cites, that the sanctification here is such a sanctification as is parallel with that 1 Tim 4. 5. but only say, that this may be the sense I gather from the like use of the word foreign, 1 Tim. 4. 5. which likeness I make, not in asserting the sanctification here to be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy means, but that as 1 Tim. 4. 5. it signifies lawfully enjoyed, so here, though in a different manner, and from a different reason or cause.
Mr. Marshall goes on page 156. Thirdly, yet a third argument I take from your own words: you have endeavoured (though in vain) to shew that bastards may be called unclean, and holy may be called chast; but you do not, and I believe you cannot, produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proof that holiness signifies legitimation; you are holy, id est, you are lawfully begotten; if you can, pray let us have it in the next.
Answ. Whether I have endeavoured in vain to shew that bastards may be called unclean, and holy chast, I am willing the unprejudiced Reader should judge. If I do not produce out of the Scripture the least shew of proof that holiness signifies legitimation, the same may be said of Mr. Marshall and all others that I have met with, they do not, and I believe cannot, produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proof that holy signifies federally holy in their sense, that is, by vertue of defcent from a believer to be capable of an initiall seal or first sacrament as they use to speak: if they can, I pray that they would let us have it in the next.
The texts brought by Mr. Cobbet in his Just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 5. do none of them prove that the term [holy] signifies federally or Ecclesiastically holy in the sense wherein they would have it here taken, to be capable of an initial seal or first sacrament. Many of the texts have not the word [holy] in them, sundry are brought to prove that which is not denied, that the visible Church may be called holy, to have the adoption, to be chosen, though there be tares as well as wheat. Ezra 9. 2. [holy seed] doth not note that which is capable of the initial seal. For both the holy seed, to wit, Israelitesses were uncapable, and the unholy or unclean seed were capable of Circumcision, as all born in Abrahams house, Gen. 17. 12. But [the holy seed] there notes that seed which was descended from both parents Israelites, and not by mixed mariage of women of impure Nations, and therefore [the holy seed] is no other than a legitimate seed, according to Moses law, and consequently if the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. did allude to Ezra 9. 2. (as it seems somewhat likely) there is a plain place to prove that [holy is as much as [legitimate] that is, a seed allowed now by God, however it were heretofore when the Gentiles were strangers from the Commonwealth of Israel. Dan. 8. 24. foreign, Junius populum sanctorum, the people of holy ones, notes the Iews destroyed by Antiochus Epiphanes mentioned 1 Mac. 1. 24. &c. who are called the people of holy ones, because of Gods Covenant, worship, laws, love, favour to that people, not precisely from right to an initial seal; if in any relation to Circumcision, it was, not because they had title to it, but because they had it. Deut. 14. 2. & 26. 18, 19. & 28. 2. 9. prove not that holiness doth note barely a right to the initial seal, but a distinction from other people by Gods love, choice, laws, and their obedience to them. Ezek. 16. 8. 20, 21, 23. compared with Jerem. 2. 2, 3. & 3. 1. Isai. 54. 4. 5. prove not that holiness notes a right to Circumcison, but a peculiar state of separation to God by vertue of his Covenant with them, and love to them. Their children are called his, and said to be born to him, because of that claim he had to them jure dominii & jure faederis saith Piscator in Ezek. 16. 20. not from their right to Circumcision. 1 Pet. 2. 9. alludes to Exod. 19. 5, 6. but it is not said of any but the invisible Church of the elect, as I prove in the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. Blake s. 8. not yet refuted by any I know.
And for the urging me to bring a place in Scripture, where the word is in the same sense, or else it must not be so construed here, i… is an unreasonable thing to require it. For it is acknowledged commonly by learned men, that words are found sometimes in such senses in all sorts of Authors as they have no where else. Meric. Casaubon in his Diatriba de verborum usu, page 67. &c. to Grotius on Phil 2. 6. saying that foreign in our books signifies not some inward or hidden thing, but that which appears to the eyes, and therefore it signifies not the essence of God, but divine power of doing miracles, he answers, Rectè, modo nihil obstet, quò minus usitata verbi significatio retineatur. Tum enim certè usitatam significationem minus usitatae praeferre rectum est. Nam alioquin nullum non scriptorum genus earum vocum exempla suppeditat, quae vel rarò vel sortasse apud eundem scriptorem non omninò nisi semel tali notione, quam con extus ibi ratio manifestò requirit, occurrent, Imò non pauca, quae longè diverso vel etiam contrario sensu una eadem{que} paginâ, non dicam sententiâ: qua'e quod apud Thucydidem foreign arma sumere et deponere, intra unius ambitum sententiae à do…t is notatum. Ita fert communis loquentium usus. He gives instances in the use of foreign and foreign in the same place according to Grotius his own mind, and in the use of foreign John 17. 17. 19. by the agreeing consent of interpreters. Mr. Seaman of Ordination pag. 36. And it is as certain that many Greek words are used in the New Testament in such a sense as they are no where else to be found: those common words of foreign and foreign, are enough to prove it. He allegeth this to justifie the expounding of foreign, Acts 14. 23. of laying on of hands Mat. 18. 17. being alleged for Church-censures committed to Church-officers in the Confession of Norton resp. ad quaest. Apollon. c. 4. page 63. adhuc serio desideramus, ut edatur locus in Novo Testamento ubi presbyterium vocatur Ecclesia.faith advised by the Assembly ch. 30. Art. 2. I conceive they understand by the Church the Presbytery or Church-officers, and by let him be to thee as an heathen and a Publican, excommunication, yet I think they cannot shew in Scripture where the Church is taken for the Presbytery or Church-officers, and Mr. Gillespy in his Aarons Rod, &c: 3d book ch. 2. pag. 365. let him be to thee an heathen and a publican is a phrase never used else-where in Scripture. Many more such instances might be given out of other places: but I will confine my self to the same Epistle 1 Cor. 7. 3. the Apostle in this very chapter useth foreign, the giving due benevolence, for conjugall copulation, following therein the manner of all Nations using seemly forms, foreign, commended in Gellius noct. Att. l. 9. c. 10. in matters of mariage duty, and yet Mr. Gataker advers. Pfoch. c. 11. saying undecun{que} id hauserit, intimates, he knew not where else it is so used Mede paraph. on 2 Pet. 3. p. 15. it would be long to shew in how many words the Apostles and the Greek Scriptures written according to their dialect use notions, which the Greeks used not, viz. respecting some conformity or other with their own language.in any Greek Author, unless following him. Salmasius ad Colrium pag. 693. says, 1 Cor. 11. 10. per foreign Apostolum intellexisse velamen extra controversiam est, cum de eo inter omnes constat, and yet, no where else is it found to be used in that sense. All that singularly learned man could bring for it besides the context, is an allusion to Levit. 13. v. 45. which is farre more obscure and unlikely than my confirming the use of unclean for bastards, by allusion to Deut. 23. 2. The sense of the word foreign v. 14, 15. the same Author both there and in the Dialogue de coma, after a large and exact examination of it, makes a womanish dress of hair, distinguishing the sex, though he find onelyonly something in Hesychius Artimedorus, and some other conjectures not just in that sense in any place else, because it best suites with the matter. More such examples might be brought both out of that Epistle and other Scriptures where the sense of a word or phrase is only gathered from the context, and cannot be confirmed by the use thereof in that sense elsewhere. Now whether I have proved that the sense of the word holy is most rightly, yea necessarily, to to be understood of legitimation, as from the concurrence of interpreters, so from the matter and Analysis of the words, will appear by perusing my Exercitation and Examen, and this review, compared with the contrary writings, specially by weighing the argument which Mr. Marshall calls my 8th. exception. Besides, when Mr. Marshall confesseth that I have endeavoured to shew that bastards may be called unclean, sure there is brought by me a shew of proof, that holiness signifies legitimation, which Mr. Marshall denies. For it followeth plainly by the rule of direct Opposites in Logick, which is, that they are to be understood in opposite senses, if by unclean be meant bastards, by holy must needs be meant legitimate: yea Mr. Marshall acknowledging my Analysis of the Apostles argument to be right, page 46. and that those words Now are they holy to be the Assumption of it, Holy must needs be all one with not unclean, or else the Apostles argument hath four terms. Wherefore I infer, that if I endeavoured to shew bastards may be called unclean, in doing this I did also make a shew of a proof, that holy signifies legitimate, which Mr. Marshall denied, but I added also something from Mal. 2. 15. which whether it yield a shew of proof to prove holy signifies legitimate, comes now to be examined.
Mr. Marshall saith thus, Sure I am, that place Mal. 2. 15. That man might seek a holy seed, or rather a seed of God, will give you no help: for though a seed of God in that place might be interpreted (as Mr. Calvin would have it) for legitimate, because (as he saies) that uses to be called divine, which is excellent, as a legitimate seed is in comparison of a spurious, yet that is nothing to holiness. The word in the Hebrew there used is not a holy seed, but a seed of God, an eminent, and excellent seed, as all eminent or notable things use to be called; great Armies are called the Armies of God; great and high hills are called the hils of God; great and tall trees are called the trees of God; so that take a seed of God in that place for a legitimate seed, yet there is nothing to prove that holiness may signifie legitimation, though for my own part (pace tanti viri) I humbly conceive the Prophet intended not a legimate seed onelyonly (as Mr. Calvin would have it) but to shew what was Gods chief end in the institution of mariage, viz. The continuance of a seed of God, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the World.
Answer, I deny not but that as many interpreters reade [one] in the Nominative Case, and apply it to Abraham, so they make a seed of God such as might serve God and not Idols, nor that sundry of those that reade [one] in the Accusative, as our Translators do, make a seed of God to be more than a legitimate, to wit, a just or godly posterity. Yet there are together with Calvin other learned men that do extend it no further than legitimation. Thus of late Theodorus Strackius hypomn. in Heresb. Hist. Anabap. page 64. Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. part 1. ch. 1. sect. 4. when he saith, the children of each man and wife are a seed of God, or of his institution in generall approbation, as Mal. 2. 15. truly proveth. And the reason is, that which I set down in my Examen page 77. to wit, that the text speaks of the first institution of mariage, the proper end of which was, not a seed of God distinct from the wicked, but a lawfull seed distinct from spurious by loose and uncertain copulation. As the proper genuine end of mariage, as such, was in respect of the parties their naturall solace and help by society; though God intended also that as his Creatures they should serve him, an end agreeing to them as Creatures, and common to Angels that mary not: so in respect of their posterity, though God intended also that they should be godly, yet the proper and genuine end of the mariage was only the having them lawfully begotten, which very thing was it which the Prophet intended in opposition to he Iews Polygamy and divorces upon insufficient causes.
Now this reason Mr. Marshall hath not at all answered, though he tells us what he humbly conceives, which little satisfies his Reader without giving reason of his judgement. Now if this be granted, then it is much to the business of holiness, a seed of God and a holy seed being terms of the same sense here: And so Piscator in his Analysis of Mal. 2. 15. Institutio conjugii declaratur ex fine, quod voluit ut per tale conjugium procrearentur liberi sancti: in his Scholie, Semen Dei id est liberos sanctos ex Dei institutione in legitimo conjugio nato…. Diodati and the New Annot. He might seek,] Gods chief end in this proce…ding was that the posterity might be sanctified being born in chast wedlock according to his appointment, whereas it is defiled by all manner of unlawfull conjunction: And even the confession of faith advised by the Assembly ch. 24. art. 2. Mariage was ordained for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with a holy seed, and in the margin no other text is alleged to prove this proposition, but Mal. 2. 15. which evidently shews that a holy seed, and seed of God, are terms equipollent in the Assemblies judgement. Whence I inferre, that if by [seed of God] be meant no more than legitimate, Malac. 2. 15. and that a seed of God, and a holy seed, is all one, it is no meer imagined sense, but such as hath shew of proof, yea and strength too, the matter it self leading to it, to interpret holy by legitimate, 1 Cor. 7. 14.
As for that which Mr. Marshall addes. Now according to y…ur interpretation of holiness for chastity, the Apostles argument must run thus, If your mariage were not lawfull, your children would be bastards, but now they are chast, which serse were too ridiculous, which to av…id you are compelled instead of chast to say legitimate, without any example of such a use of the word holy.
Answ. All this runs upon Mr. Marshalls mistakes of my forming the Apostles reason, which is not, If your mariage were not lawful at first entring, but in the continued use of it in cohabitation and conjunction, your children would be bastards, nor do I say, but now are they chast, but legitimate, nor am I compelled to expound holy by legitimate from any other thing than clear evidence of reason in Analysing the text, and whether I or Mr. Marshall have shewed better example of our use of the word [holy] let the Reader be judge. The word [holy] Ezra 9. 2. to me is all one with legitimation.
Mr. Geree in his Vindic. Paedobap. page 27. speaks thus. Besides (as I think) Mr. Blake hath well observed, Who call children unclean or holy for the parents act? The accident denominates the subject where it is, not another. Now uncleanness and chastity are not in the children, but in the parents, and therefore to call the children unclean or holy for their parents chastity or unchastity is most uncouth and unproper; and therefore not to be adm…tted in the Apostles words.
Answ. If none call children unclean or holy for the parents act, how is it true which Mr. Geree and Mr. Blake make children federally holy or unclean for the parents believing or not believing?
Formal denominations are, to speak exactly, alwayes from the form denominating: which is not always an accident, but sometimes a substance, as from a head headed; Kecker. syst. Log. lib. 1. p. 2. c. 1. Burgersd. Instit. Log. lib. 1. c. 25. n. 7.and not only from an accident inherenr, but also adjacent, as from a coat coated. And somtimes men use a causal denomination, as from heating hot. I call not children unclean or holy, from the parents chastity or unchastity as from a form formally denominating: But when I say from the parents lawfull copulation a person is holy or legitimate, from their loose and unlawfull copulation unclean or illegitimate, I mean such copulation is the cause, and the denomination (if the term befit) caussal: but formally children are unclean, that is illegitimate, for their uncleanness of birth or illegitimation, and holy, that is legitimate from, their holiness of birth or legitimation. But these are niceties. I hasten to examine Mr. Marshalls arguments from the matter of the Apostles discourse.