Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 23
SECT. XXII.
Mr. Bs. premised grants, various expositions, distinctions and explications of the words [sanctified and holy] are examined.
MR. Baxter in the begining of his 29th ch. of the first part of his book intituled Plain Scripture-proof of Infants-church-membership and baptism, calls the text 1 Cor. 7. 14. that full, plain text for his visible Church-membership of believers infants, against which men do so willfully cavill in vain, as if they were sorry that God speaks so plainly, and were resolved to yield neither to dark expressions nor to plain.
But Mr. Bs. peremptory confident speeches, and hot charges, are too weak to determine the matter. Me thinks a little sobriety might have caused him to speak more cautelously, if not for my sake, yet for Musculus his sake, who having used it against Anabaptists, did in his commentary (when men best discern the meaning of a text) relinquish Mr. Bs. sense, and fell to mine as convinced by evidence of reason. I presume he doth not think either he, or Camerarius, Melanchton, Osiander, Ambrose, Hierom, Aquinas, Gorran, Anselm, Gagnaeus, that I omit others such as Mariana, Vasquez, Suarez, Cornelius à Lapide, Emmanuel Sa, Menochius, Perinus, &c. would wilfully cavil against a text, and yet they agree with me. But let us consider what he saith, It is undeniable,
1. That it is only believers to whom Paul giveth this comfort, and of whom he saith, that their children were holy.
Answ. I deny that the words of Paul were to give comfort, but to resolve a doubt; and though it is true, they were only believers whose doubt he did resolve, and of whose children he then spake, yet I deny that either the sanctification of the unbeliever in or to the yokefellow, or the childrens holiness is ascribed to the faith of the believer.
2. And that it was spoken as a common privilege to all believers children, and not as proper to the children of these Corinthians: all this is confessed.
Answ. By whomsoever it is confessed (though I think Mr. B. means me) yet I deny it to be confessed by me, (yea Mr. B. page 86. saith I deny it) that either it was spoken as a privilege to believers children, or as a common privilege to all believers children. Mr. B. knows, that it is the chief thing that I contend, that this is meant of legitimation, and therefore I should contradict my self if I should understand it of the base children of believers. However, I desire the Reader here to take notice, 1. That Mr. B. takes it for undeniable, that to be holy is a common privilege to all believers children, and consequently their illegitimate children. 2. That this holiness is not proper to the children of those Corinthians.
Then he names three expositions. Some he saith expound it of Saving holiness, Mr. B. takes it for undoubted, that it is meant of a state of separation to God, as a peculiar people from the world, as the Church is separated, called from the Covenant or promise of God as the chief cause [federall holiness] my judgement is set down plain enough before. As for Mr. Bs. saying [it is a general rule among all sound Divines in interpreting Scriptures, that you are to take words in the ordinary sense wherein God in Scripture useth them, except there be a palpable unavoidable necessity of understanding them otherwise] I do not easily believe Mr. B. therein.
Sure I am sound Divines, as they are accounted, do expound Mat. 18. 17. [tell the Church] of the Presbytery, besides the ordinary sense of the Scripture, without palpable unavoidable necessity. The like may I say of [delivering to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5.] expounded of Excommunication, and many more. And for my part I think words are often interpreted rightly besides the ordinary sense, when either the scope, coherence, frame of speech, all usion, or other such fit reason lead to another sense, though without palpable unavoidable necessity of understanding them otherwise. And if it be no wonder that men that rashly venture upon singular interpretations do abound with error, and be uncapable of any satisfaction from Scripture, I conceive Mr. B. who seems rash enough in venturing on singular interpretations, as likely to abound with error, and to be uncapable of satisfaction, as another man. If he would insinuate concerning me (as it is likely) that I am rash in venturing on singular interpretations because of my exposition of this text, me thinks he should be ashamed thereof, there being so many of note concurring with me, and such important reasons delivered by me.
Mr. B. afore he comes to his arguments for his sense, dictates much about the terms [holiness and sanctification] He tells us that the common nature of holiness is one and the same in all: that is, a separation to God, omne sanctum est Deo sanctum, and page 255. Holiness is taken for nothing else in all other Scriptures but fer a separation to God. But God is holy, and yet me thinks it were inept to say God is separated to God, and we are bid to sanctifie the Lord of hosts himself, Isai. 8. 13. yet not to separate God to God. Chastity is called holiness, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4, 7. Mr. B. page 255. acknowledgeth it a part of holiness, and therefore to have the common nature of it, and then if all holiness note separation to God, then Chastity is such, and when Mr. B. hath shewed how Chastity is a separation to God, it is not improbable but I may be able to shew that legitimation notes also a separation to God, and then I shall find my sense agreeable to the use or notation of the word. For my part I think [sanctification and holiness] in Scripture, note discrimination, differencing, Excellency, setting apart, preparation: but not alwayes separating to God. I have named before Ios. 20. 9. 1 Sam. 21. 5. holiness seems to be meant only of freedome from the use of women, to which I adde, Jerem. 6. 4. sanctifie warre, that is prepare Pis. schol. in 1 Sam. 16. 6. Sanctificatio autem illa consistebat in lotione vestium et abstinentia à mulierum concubitu ut declaratur Exod. 19. 14, 15.warre, yea Deut. 23. 14. the camp is said to be holy in respect of freedom from impurity by mans dung, and generally holiness is opposed to any sort of uncleanness, whereof bastardy being one, holy is aptly put for legitimate, especially considering that in things of mariage foreign words of honour and comliness are used. Grotius in 1 Cor. 7. 14. saith, To be sanctified is to be a lawfull wife, and this according to the expressions of the Hebrews, that say a wife is sanctified by a pledge, &c. and allegeth Moses Kotrensis to this purpose. Buxtorf. Lexic. Heb. radice foreign parari, praeparari, destinari ad aliquid generaliter: in specie sacrari, consecrari, sanctificari, sanctum, sacrum esse vel fieri.
Next Mr. B. sets down 4. distinctions, 1. He saith a person or thing may be holy in state and standing relation, or else only for some particular act or use, whether for shorter or longer time: In this latter sense a wicked man, yea a heathen, may be sanctified or separated, when it is to a common, and not to a speciall work. But this cannot be the holiness that is here ascribed to infants while they are infants. For they be not capable of any such work for God. Therefore it is a holiness of state which is ascribed to them.
Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes distinctions, but he brings not Scriptures to exemplifie the branches of his distinction, which had been requisite when he distinguished of words used in Scripture.
2. He plainly confounds these denominatives [Holy and sanctified] applying both branches of the distinction to either indifferently: whereas if we speak after the use of the Scripture, when a person is set apart for a particular act, he is said to be sanctified, no where that I know to be holy, and a state of separation is expressed by [Holy] not by [sanctified.]
3. Holiness of state and standing relation are made equipollent, whereas to be holy in state doth as well note a denomination of quality as a relation, as when we said God is holy, this is a holiness of state yet importing a denomination of quality from his purity, not of standing relation to another.
4. When Mr. B. saith when a heathen may be said to be sanctified, it is to a common and not to a speciall work. I conceive he would have said [sacred work] For if he understand [common] in opposition to special, then he is said to be sanctified to a common, that is a generall work, that is which any were to do, and if so, there is no separation or setting apart, and so no sanctification.
5. I take notice he denies Infants can be holy as sanctified to some particular act or use.
6. That he understands the term children 1 Cor. 7. 14. as appliable to infants, if not to them only.
The 2d distinction is of holy in state by meer separation and relation, or qualification with endowments suitable to the state which they are separated to. In the former sense he saith all the infants of the faithfull are sanctified, and perhaps some of them also qualified by renewing grace for their future service of God: in the later sense every true believer is sanctified.
Answ. 1. Holiness to God though it import a relation, yet I conceive it doth not import a meer relation, but as qualities and other things which be not meer relations secundùm esse, as they speak in Schools, though they note some reference, as Science to the object known, sense to the object sensible, so it is with holiness, it doth often import some reference to God, yet it is not a meer relation. And therefore though it be true that every person or thing that is said to be holy or sanctified is not endowed with renewing grace, yet they have some qualification, or form, such as common profession, or descent, or anointing, or some such like note from which they are thus denominated holy or sanctified, and consequently if infants be denominated holy or sanctified, there must not only be the Covenant as the chief cause, but also some form or other, of descent, birth, or the like, which must denominate them holy. 'Tis true, the elect Iews yet uncalled are holy, Rom. 11. 16. not in act, but in purpose, and so as their holiness is future, the form from which they are denominated holy is future, however there must be some form, qualification, note, or foundation from whence the thing or person termed holy or sanctified is so called.
The 3d distinction is thus expressed. There is a sanctifying or separating to God either directly and immediately: so every believer, and so their children are sanctified. And there is a separating or sanctifying to God remotely and secondarily, when a thing is separated for his use who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his profession to) use it for God, and sanctifie the fruit of it directly to him: thus all our meat, drink, and enjoyments are sanctified, because whether we eat or drink, or what ever we do, it must be all to his glory. Thus the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified to the believer, both as being separated to one, that is separated to God, and also who will use all for God: yea as a husband or wife they make up that conjugall state which is more directly for God: And if they beget a holy seed it is one of the uses that they were sanctified to.
Answ. 1. Mr. B. conceives these terms, a disciple, a visible Church-member, holy as separated to God, applied to infants, equipollent, as the tenor of his whole discourse in this book shews. Now ch. 3. page 15. he saith, the parents are disciples directly, the infants remotely or mediately: But here he saith, every believer and their children are sanctified directly and immediately, which I take to be a plain unsaying of what he said before.
2. Nor can his speech here be true, that the children are sanctified immediately, when they are sanctified by the means of the parents faith, according to his own supposition page 15.
3. The sanctifying to God as he calls it remotely or secondarily is ill expressed. The place to which he hath reference is 1 Tim. 4. 5. But there the creature is not said to be sanctified because it is separated for his use who is separated to God, and will (or is bound by his profession to) use it for God, and sanctifie the fruit of it directly to him, or because he must do all to Gods glory. But the text saith it is sanctified by the word that takes away the prohibition of meats, and allows us the use of every creature, and prayer and thanksg…ving whereby God is acknowledged to be the giver of them, without which though the person be separated to God, and by duty, profession, yea and purpose of will he will use it for God, except he do so use it actually it is not sanctified. To speak truth, by Mr. Bs. description Bathsheba was sanctified to David when he lay with her in adultery; Noah when he drank wine and was drunk: For all the conditions of sanctification as set down by Mr. B. concurred in these acts, they were persons separated to God, and would or were bound by their profession, to use them for God. And if it were enough for sanctification of enjoyments that they must be all to Gods glory, sith [must] implies nothing but duty in that place, and not only hypocrites, but also infidels professed must or ought to do all to Gods glory (which is true, or else it is no sin to them that they do not) all enjoyments may be said to be sanctified to hypocrites and professed unbelievers, according to the force of Mr. Bs. dictates.
4. If Mr. Bs. speech be right, that the unbelieving husband or wife without abuse or impropriety of speech be sanctified to the believer, both as being separated to God, and also who will use all for God; yea as a husband or wife they make up that conjugall state, which is more directly for God; and if they beget a holy seed, it is one of the uses they were sanctified to: then by the like reason the unbelieving child may be said to be holy or sanctified, because he is separated, as a child to one that is separated to God, and who will use all for God, and as a fatner and child they make up that family state which is more directly for God, and if he bring up and match him, this is one of the uses to which he was sanctified. Which if true, there may be a holiness meerly from extrinsecal respects, according to Mr. Bs. dictates, which doth not make a person a visible Church-member, and therefore the holiness 1 Cor. 7. 19. according to his explication doth not necessarily inferre Church-membership, sith it may agree to an infidel husband, wife, or child.
5. He saith, As husband or wife the believer and unbeliever make up that conjugall state which is more directly for God, whereby it seems the conjugal state is by him made to be more directly for God: If be mean more directly than the unmaried, then it would be shewed wherein. The Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 32, 33. seems to determine otherwise. And if it be that the conjugal state is more directly for God, why should not mariage be termed holy, and legitimate children holy children? If he say it is more directly for God in that one is a believer, why doth he use this expression [As husband and wife] which a Reader would conceive to mean that under that formall consideration then conjugall estate is more directly for God? If it be ascribed by him to the faith of the one, then it would be shewed wherein the conjugall state of one believer and another unbeliever is more directly for God than the conjugal state of two unbelievers. If it be said, in that it is to beget a holy seed, then suppose a child begotten both parents being unbelievers at the time of begetting, but afore birth the one is converted and becomes a believer, that conjugal state is not directly for God, nor the one sanctified to the other for his use, nor consequently the child holy, sith the Apostles included proposition makes the children unclean of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other, and yet Mr. B. conceives such a child holy. Again two aged persons marying lawfully though believers, their conjugal estate is not directly from God, nor they sanctified, because they are not for the use of begetting a holy seed, being now unable for procreation.
But Mr. B. to salve the matter saies. Though I will not stick to the common term of [instrumental sanctification] which Mr. T. takes so much advantage against, because it implies but one of the ends of this separation, and that not constant neither. For I doubt not but in some cases it may be lawful for those to mary that are past child-bearing.
To which I reply. Mr. B. it seems will stick to the thing meant by instrumental sanctification, yet will not stick to the term of instrumental sanctification; which is in effect to tell me, he will wrangle rather than yield to an expression though not denied to be apt enough. For what is it to be sanctified to ones use, but to be instrumentally sanctified to him. But saith he, Mr. T. takes much advantage of it. It seems then when a term gives me advantage Mr. B. will not stick to it, which is no better than a professed foreign, or drawing a contrary way. But sure the advantage I make of it is not barely from the term, but also from the thing signified by it in my Examen part. 3. s. 8. pag. 72, 73. And why will not Mr. B. stick to it? because saith he, it implieth but one of the ends of this separation, and that not constant neither. But Mr. B. assigns no other end of the sanctification of the unbelieving husband to the wives use, but the begetting a holy seed, and if this be one end, yet the term is fit to express it: yea if there be any other uses for which one is sanctified to the other besides begetting a holy seed, yet the term instrumental sanctification were fit enough to express them. For what is it to be sanctified to another use but to be his instrument. Burgersdic. Inst. Leg. lib. 1. c. 17. s. 26. unumquod{que} instrumentum est id quod est quia & quatenus aptum est ad certum usum.
Lastly, Mr. B. by saying, that the begetting a holy seed is not a constant use of lawfull marying, confirms my argument against the sense of instrumental sanctification i… the case of maried persons past childbearing, though one be a believer; they are not sanctified to beget a holy seed, and yet they are said to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7. 14. otherwise the Apostle had not cleared their lawful living together, which is proved by the Apostle from the sanctification of one in, or to another.
The 4th distinction is thus expressed. Again, sometime persons or things are sanctified actively, that is separated to some action for God, as the Priests, Levites, &c. And sometimes passively, that is separated to be used for God, as the Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, &c. The unbelieving husband or wife is both wayes sanctified.
To which I answer. But that Mr. Bs. name is up, and thereby seems licensed to dictate without proof, I would demand of him a text wherein a person is said to be sanctified passively to be used for God, as the Temple, &c. And for the unbelieving husbands sanctification passively for Gods use without his action, as an Altar, &c. is such a notion as I cannot yet divine what it should be. All these things are dictated by Mr. B. without proof or direction where to find it. Next he would seem to apply them thus.
All these distinctions are but from several ends and degrees of separation. The common nature of holiness is one and the same in all: that is a separation to God; And so both children of believers and also unbelieving yoke-fellows are here said to be holy and sanctified.
Answ. After Mr. B. had shewed various wayes of holiness and sanctification, when he comes to apply his distinctions he doth not tell us in which way the sanctification of the unbelieving yoke-fellow, or the holiness of the children 1 Cor. 7. 14. is to be understood, and in which not: but wraps up all in the common nature of separation to God, and yet denies that in some sorts of sanctification and holiness the infants of a believer, and the unbelieving parent, are holy or sanctified. So that his whole proceeding in distinguishing of various wayes of sanctifying and holiness, and then closing up all in the common nature of holiness, without shewing in each of these how the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified, and the child holy in his sense, 1 Cor. 7. 14. is at least illogical, if not sophisticall, serving onelyonly to put the Reader to fish out his meaning, if not for an advantage to put by his Antagonists opposition. And by this understanding Scholars will conceive how unlikely, if not impossible, it was for me to answer such a disputer presently upon hearing his arguments, and to shew the fallacy of his distinctions with satisfaction to hearers. But I shall now follow him step by step.