-- CHAPTER IV: A larger explication of 1 COR. 7:14
this, that as his, so our children should be holy; which is the same thing that in this other place in the Corinths the Holy Ghost is pleased to speak of them. And although the catalogue and number of Abraham's children to be converted may exceed ours, yet the holiness of the one and the other is the same, and therein these two speeches do sweetly agree and accord.
CHAPTER IV
A larger explication of 1 COR. 7:14, 'For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean: but now are they holy.'
But because this place is so much controverted, and some may not rest satisfied with the comparing these two places together, I will therefore more largely insist on this place of 1 Cor. 7 to prove this to be the true meaning of it, and intention of the Holy Ghost in it; and that it accords with that other, Rom. 11, in respect of the holiness spoken of in both, which, if it be the more insisted upon, let it be considered that posteritatis causam ago, as he said in a far differing sense, I plead the cause of our poor children and posterity; than which, next pleading of your own salvation, nothing can be more comfortable unto you.
Other senses are, and have been, put upon the place by Anabaptists, to make void this privilege of believers' children; as also by papists, who, to make baptism to work holiness, ex opere operato, in every one baptized, they therefore deny any of the children of believers to be holy until baptism; and so all others, even infidels' children, may be made holy by being baptized, if that opinion of theirs were true. It is also otherwise expounded by some of our divines, though not to serve their opinions. But I will first give what I conceive to be the true meaning of it; and then you shall see all false ones vanish before the genuine sense of it.
My method in discoursing upon these words shall be, first, to open and explain the words and phrases in it; and, second, to frame reasons out of those explications of the phrases, for the confirmation of the point in hand, namely, that this is true holiness here intended; and then, thirdly, to remove such false interpretations as are affixed by others.
And for the first, what may be said for the explication of the words, I reduce to these few heads and considerations.
First, Let us consider the occasion upon which these words do come in. Now, in this chapter, the apostle's scope is to resolve some cases of conscience about marriage, which the Corinthians had written to him about, verse 1. As, 1. Whether it were best to marry at all, from verse 1 to 10.
2. In what cases divorces after marriage were lawful. As, First, Whether so arbitrary, as that upon any occasion of offence they might leave their wives or husbands, as the Jews were wont to do. To this he answers, ver. 10, 11, and says, he gives but the same rule that Christ did once, who pronounced the marriage knot inseparable. But then, second, whether yet in one case that party were an unbeliever, the believing party were not then bound to put away or leave the other. This was a case did frequently fall out in those times, and doth to this day, that two persons being married together in their unregenerate estate, one of them is converted, the other still remaining in unbelief. Now in this case (two in shew) exceeding great scruples did arise then in believers' minds, and are apt to arise still, and we see do ordinarily arise in believing parties' minds: as first, concerning marriage communion with such an husband or wife, whether though the marriage be legal by man's law, yet in such communion one should not contract a defilement before God, in that one becomes one flesh with an unbeliever and member of Satan, considering that before Moses's time such unequal marriages were
forbidden, and under Moses's law they were to put away strange wives as defiled by them.
The second scruple in it, and which ariseth to this day, was about the state and condition of the children begotten by such a communion, lest they should be accursed by reason of the unbelieving parent, seeing the threatening so much run against the children for their parents, as in the second commandment; and lest such children might not lose the privilege of those promises made to the seed of the godly, through the one parents' unbelief, yea, and lest they should in the church's account, and that warrant from God, be accounted unclean, as the children of strange wives were accounted of old, although the father was a Jew, and so to be separated from the other,
Nehemiah 9:2.
Now to this case the apostle answers roundly and fully, and as punctually to both these scruples as could be desired, by affirming the clean contrary, namely, that for the act of communion with such a husband, 'the husband is sanctified in the believing wife;' that is
(1.), both in conjugal acts, quoad usum, to her, so as she may as holily have communion with him, as if her husband were a believer as well as she; and (2.) also, he is sanctified in her, or through her, to all the ends of marriage, that so by her the blessing of the covenant should be derived to children begotten by him, as fully as if he were a believer. And that they need not fear that their children were unclean, as when both parents are unbelievers, the apostle intimates that they are to be so esteemed, which I take to be the meaning of those words, 'Else they were unclean,' that is, if that God had not thus sanctified an unbelieving husband in the wife, she being a believer, they would indeed have been such, 'but now,' that is, in this case, one of them being a believer, 'their children are holy,' as well as if both parents were believers; they receive no prejudice from the unbelieving parent, God's covenant with the believing parent and his ordinance prevailing more to sanctify both that act to the believer, and also to convey the blessing of the promise, holiness to their children, than the unbelief of the husband is able, either to defile the
act, or to convey the curse threatened to unbelievers' children. This is the sum of his answer in general.
The second particular to be considered for the explication of these words, is the preface which he makes to his resolution of the case, or that which he premiseth for the warrant or authority by which he is to solve it; and therein he tells us, (1.) that there is this difference between this latter case and that former, about arbitrary divorces, that that case the Lord Christ himself had decided already (as Mat.
19:3), and so therein he should but command what Christ had said in that point already, that divorces at pleasure ought not to be, as among the Jews and Gentiles they were frequent, so, ver. 10, 'To the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,' &c. But to this latter case, and those that follow, he prefaceth thus: 'To the rest speak I, not the Lord,' ver. 12; that is, I find not an express word already, either uttered by Christ himself when on earth, nor in the New
Testament to solve it by; neither doth the rule about this case given in the Old Testament to the Jews hold now, to bind the Gentiles under the gospel, this being a new case of a clean different nature from theirs. And there being under the gospel an alteration made of the Jews' ceremonial and typical laws, and the judicial that were founded thereon, so as this remained entirely to be decided by his apostolic spirit, therefore he says, 'To this speak I;' that is, I as an apostle, guided by the Spirit of Christ, do give this following solution of it. For that he resolved this, and the rest that follow, as infallibly guided by the Spirit, he tells us in the closure of them, ver. 40, 'In my judgment, and I think I have the Spirit of God,' so that your consciences may rest in these resolutions as from God. (2.) In solving this case, he gives a caution and limitation to what he saith about it, that he intended only to speak this for the comfort of such persons who are already married (perhaps when unbelievers, but since called), and not at all to those who are as yet to marry, lest these words of his should be any encouragement, or be understood to give liberty to any, to marry an unbeliever, because an unbeliever is sanctified in the believer, &c. No; he would have them know, that though it be true, factum valet, the marriage being made (which was
the case as they had put it) holds good and valid, and that they need not to scruple either a defiling themselves in conjugal acts, or a defilement traduced to their children; yet, fieri non debuit, it ought not to have been made; and so this, he says, would not warrant those who were to marry, to take liberty so to marry, by reason thereof.
That this is his meaning thus to caution and state it, appears by his words, ver. 12, 'If a brother hath a wife,' that is, already hath, which he puts in, as it were, on purpose to prevent and exclude this corollary or conclusion that any might make out of it, that if he were to marry a wife, he might marry one that believeth not. It appears also to have been his meaning by that in ver. 17, where the ground upon which he resolves it thus (concerning persons already married) is this, that God, by converting and calling men to the faith, would have no civil, natural bonds broken or dissolved; he intends not to make such alterations in the world as to break the bonds of wedlock, or of subjection already entered into, but lets all things stand as they did, and ordains the courses of things to run on their own wheels.
Thus in those words, 'As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk;' that is, look in what station God hath set any, whether of a servant or wife, let them continue still therein; and this he doth 'for peace sake,' ver. 15, for what a disturbance and confusion would this make in the world, if conversion should dissolve such bonds! Only
God sanctifies all these stations and conditions unto believers when converted, which before conversion they are not unto them; and hence his scope is to shew that a believer being already indeed married to an unbeliever, and that knot knit, and he or she converted after such marriage, or else repenting afterwards of such a marriage, then God sanctifies the unbelieving husband or wife in and to that believer, to all the holy ends of marriage, as truly as if both parties were believers. God takes all such like conditions and stations, and sanctifies the course of things in this world, even as he takes our spirits, and the several constitutions natural in them, and sanctifies them, without altering the course thereof. And further, that this is his meaning appears by the conclusion of all, ver. 39, where, speaking of one that is at liberty to marry where she please, he yet limits her thus, 'only in the Lord,' if there be choice of such. And when it falls
out that a believer is married to an unbeliever, it is by a gracious dispensation that the unbeliever is sanctified, for it is not for their sakes, or from them at all, simply considered as husbands (though lawful ones) but in, and to, and for the sake of the believer; and so also for the believers' sake it is that their children are holy, which else were unclean.
These things being premised concerning the occasion, and the apostle's stating of the case, let us, secondly, consider the solution itself he here gives. For the clearing of which, and the apostle's meaning herein, let us take notice of two things.
1. That his intention is to declare some privilege properly and peculiarly belonging to a believer's marriage, and which is not common to all other marriages, nor belonging to unbelievers of themselves. This is evident, (1.) By those words in the first part of the verse, 'The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.' In which it is manifest he attributes this sanctification spoken of (let it be understood how it will), of the unbelieving person in marriage to be in and for the sake of the believing party. Now if it had been but some common privilege of marriage, common to all sorts, both unbelievers as well as to believers in their marriages, which he had intended, then the unbelieving husband had been as much sanctified in his marriage of himself as in and by his wife that was a believer. Or (2.) if his meaning had been that both had been sanctified in one another mutually, and each equally in and from each other, without the special privilege of the one party, then he would have said, in the second sentence, that the believing wife had been sanctified by the husband, as in the former it was said the unbelieving husband was sanctified by the wife; but in both sentences, though he turns and alters the speech from husband to wife, and wife to husband, affirming it first of the wife, then of the husband, yet still he keeps to this in both, that the unbelieving party is sanctified in the other,
whether wife or husband. It must needs therefore be, that he means to attribute this privilege of the unbeliever unto the believer, vouchsafed only for his or her sake. And (3.) the particle ἐν, which we translate by, implies this; for it is all one with propter; in, or for their sakes; or (as our translation hath rendered the force of it) by the wife; that is, for and through her, or by reason of her.
And if it be said, that yet he adds not the word believing, and says not is sanctified in the believing wife, I answer, that this must necessarily be understood; for, [1.] According to the law of opposition, and the manner of the Scripture's expression (such as in the Proverbs and elsewhere you shall often meet with), but one of two contraries are expressed, and the other understood thereby; and in that here in both the sentences the unbeliever is mentioned, the other part, believer, is necessarily implied.
Yes, [2.] therein lies the emphasis, that even an unbeliever is sanctified (which else is a seeming contradiction, for to them all things are impure), yet though an unbeliever, yet he is notwithstanding sanctified in the wife, as believing.
And yet [3.] it is further noted out as emphatically in the Greek article ἐν τῇ γυναικί, and ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ. He is sanctified in that wife, namely, in that brother or sister believing, as in putting the case, he had called him, ver. 12, and calleth her, ver. 15.
And therefore [4.] in some Greek copies, as Beza says he found it, unto ἐν τῇ γυναικί, the word πιστῇ is expressly added, that is, in the believing wife; and to ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ, the word πιστῶ is added, in the believing husband.
The like is said of their children, that they have a differing privilege (which the word ἐπεὶ, else, notes out, as I shall shew anon) from that which those of unbelievers have.
So much for the first, that some special privilege to a believer is intended.
2. Let us therefore consider, what this privilege itself of a believer in marriage is, which is double, as here: (1.) of the husband, or party married, that he is sanctified in the wife; (2.) of the children, that they are not unclean, but holy. Let us consider, first, how the unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified.
(1.) You see it is not meant of inherent sanctification in his person; for he is said to be sanctified, not as in himself, but ἐν τῇ γυναικί, in the wife; that is, in another; therefore it is not meant that he is holy personally.
But (2.) it is a sanctification instrumenti respectu finis aut usus, of an instrument in respect to an end, or for a holy use or purpose, as things which we use holily, or which do serve God's providence to an holy use, are said to be sanctified. Thus in Scripture we find things are called holy, or vain, as that use or end is to which the users put them. The creatures used by men to lust are said to be 'subjected to vanity,' Rom. 8. The 'bells and bridles of horses, are said to be
'holiness to the Lord,' being used holily by believers under the gospel, Zech. 13. Yea, thus the armies of the Babylonians serving to God's holy ends of vengeance on Jerusalem, and of goodness to his elect, are called 'sanctified ones,' Jer. 13:13. And thus here the husband is sanctified in the wife. Now this is to be understood in a double sense or respect:
[1.] As to her use; that is, so as she may have a sanctified and holy communion with him: in the same sense that, to believers, the creatures are said not only to be good in themselves, but to be sanctified, 1 Tim. 4:5, that is, in their use; so as believers may have not only a lawful but a holy use of them, according to the word; which fully answers the scruples that the believing party might have of defilement in that communion. His resolution is, that this marriage stands not only good, but sanctified also.
But [2.] that is not all, that he is sanctified to her and her use, so as that communion of her with him is holy before God, and in God's account. But further, look what holy end and sanctified purpose there is of marriage, either of the act itself, or that which God hath ordained it for unto other believers, as namely, when both parties are believers, that same holy end shall be accomplished and brought about as fully as if her husband were a believer. He is holy to her, not only quoad usum operantis, but ad omnes fines operis, to all ends and purposes. Now, the main and principal end of believers' marriage, and of generation thereby, was, in God's ordination and institution, to bring forth 'an holy seed.' As at the first creation, one of the ends for which God made man and wife was to beget an holy seed, so this was the end of the marriages of the Jews too, that they might have a holy seed, as they are called, Ezra 9:2; and it is likewise the end ordained by God of the marriages of believers, which, I take it, you have clearly expressed, Mal. 2:15; where, whatever the reading of the words may be, yet by the connection this much is evident, that he goes about to convince the Jews of their sin of marrying 'strange wives,' and putting away their own, ver. 11, and he useth one kind of general argument to convince them of both: first, from the primitive institution, shewing them from thence how herein they perverted the ends of marriages as they were at first ordained by God, whose end in marriage was to seek an holy seed, a seed of God; and he at first made but one woman, and made the man and her one flesh. Whence it is evident that the prophet shews God's institution of marriage to the Jews in covenant with him as his people, was to the same holy end, that at first to Adam in paradise, and so to us upon the same ground. For that primitive institution is moral, which was, that a holy seed might be brought forth to God; for he allegeth God's end at first, so as, since the fall, as God hath ordained marriage to mankind to bring forth men, so to holy men to seek a seed of God. Now, says the apostle here, the marriage communion of a believer with an unbelieving husband or wife is thus sanctified, to attain this end as fully as if they were both believers. And this sense he aims at in the word sanctified, as here he useth it; for if you mark the latitude of the phrase, he doth not only say, that he is sanctified to her, but in her,
so in the original ἐν τῇ γυναικί, as not only to her use, that her act with him should be holy, but by her, and in her, to a further holy end besides, even that which God hath ordained the marriage of believers unto, or that the marriage of two that are both believers useth to be sanctified unto. And what that end is follows in the next words, even the same you heard out of Malachi, that the children begotten on her should be holy and not unclean, and so partake of the privileges that children begotten by parents, being both believers, can be supposed to have.
And therefore, 2, I pass to that other privilege, which is couched in this, which descendeth to their children as peculiar to them, namely, that 'they are holy,' to the conveying of which unto their children, that other former privilege tends; for his meaning is, that the husband is sanctified in her to this end, that the children begotten by him on her should be holy.
And for the clearing of this let us consider:
1. In general, that he, in those words, 'Your children are holy,' doth intend some personal privilege which the children inherit from the parent, by virtue of some like privilege vouchsafed the parents, which is to be reckoned as a badge of honour or cognisance, that personally they enjoy and inherit; such as children use to have from noble parents as a cognisance of nobleness or gentry, and so here of holiness, mentioned as a personal royalty which they inherit, by which they are truly in themselves denominated holy, as the child of a nobleman is termed noble.
2. And then, secondly, more particularly for the further inquiring into what this holiness is, you may, first, observe the apostle varying the phrase when he comes to speak of the children, from what he had used when he spake of the unbelieving parent himself: he is said but to be sanctified in his wife, but the children are said to be holy. The former notes out a passive kind of subserving to the holy use of another, or to a holy end, but this latter notes out an holiness in
themselves; that but an instrumental holiness, this a personal. He is sanctified but as an instrument is to an holy end, yea, even to this very end, to help to bring forth holy children; but they are simply and absolutely termed holy. He cannot be said to be personally holy, for he is supposed to be an unbeliever, in the style the apostle speaks of him, and so to say he were holy were a contradiction, yet is he sanctified, as the creatures are, to an holy end. But the children here are said to be holy, as personally and in themselves, not in the parent only, although by means of their believing mother as a believer, even as they are men of themselves, though by means of their parents; and this he did on purpose to shew that theirs is a further holiness than the father's; his use is holy, but their state is holy.
In the second place, let us observe the expressions themselves whereby he sets out the holiness of their state, and likewise his doubling of expressions to set this forth. He contents not himself to have said positively, they are holy, but he useth a negative expression also, not unclean, which he doth, 1, to settle and fix their faith more fully in it, that his meaning was real, and full, and express, and that it was a true holiness which he meant, and therefore doubled his expression of it; and 2, thereby to express it with a difference from the children of others that are both unbelievers. And thus to magnify the privilege of a believer the more, and to put emphasis upon it, he thinks it not sufficient singly to say, that they are holy, but adds, not unclean, namely, as others' children are; and to do it thus with difference from others, sets it forth the more.
And, 3 (which is that most of all I would have you to observe), he chooseth to express the holiness of their state, thus with difference, in the same terms that the Old Testament useth of the children of the Jews in difference from the heathen. Yea, and whereas in propriety of speech, according to the Greek, καθαρὰ, pure or clean, answers to ἀκάθαρτα, unclean, and so in a right way of opposition to unclean, he should rather have said, 'But now they are pure or undefiled,' we see that he varies it, and goes out of the road (as it were) of the Greek idiom and analogy, and says, 'But now they are holy,' on purpose,
because ἁγία and ἀκάθαρτα, are used by the Septuagint, for things or persons that were holy and unclean among the Jews. And the apostle here on purpose useth these very same expressions of difference of their children from others, by which the Jews expressed the difference between their children and the children of the nations, and all to shew that our privilege for our children holds, and continues now as then, yea, that theirs was but the type of what is real now. The old law in a typical sense called things that were unholy unclean; and persons prohibited to come into the temple, and to partake of holy things, were called unclean. But the seed of the Jews then admitted into the church were called the 'holy seed,' and that in distinction from the Gentiles; yea, the children of Jews, when one parent was a Jew, the other a heathen (which is the very case here), were counted unclean, Ezra 9:2. It is said, 'the holy seed mingled themselves with the people of the land;' which words are spoken not of the mingling of Jews and heathens in marriage, so much as of the ill fruit and consequent of their marriages with them
(of which the prophet had spoke in the foregoing sentence), namely, that the children begot by or upon the people of the land by the Jews in those marriages were mingled and accounted as the children begot by or upon Jews only; for, says he, 'they have taken of their daughters to themselves, so that the holy seed mingled themselves,'
&c. He speaks it therefore as the ill effect thereof, that the children begotten of such marriages were by reason thereof promiscuously mingled with and accounted of as purely Jewish children, were without any distinction, which that law utterly forbade. And the heathen, Isa. 52:1, are likewise called 'uncircumcised and unclean.
Now, then, in this place, under this common language of the Jews concerning their children, and those of others, he expresseth the like different state of believers' children and others now under the gospel; and so, then, the meaning is this, that whereas unbelievers' children are in the account of the gospel, and of God himself under the gospel, pronounced unclean (that is, as remaining in the state in which they were born, namely, of sin and uncleanness—so original sin is called, Zech. 13:1—and so was typified out by the uncleanness of infants for seven days), and therefore are to be kept out of the
church, as unclean persons were then among the Jews, and to be made partakers of no sacramental ordinances, as uncircumcised persons were not, Isa. 52:1, and so not to be baptized, as being to be judged and pronounced unclean. On the contrary (says he), your children, although born in sin as others, are yet, by God's true sentence of them in his word and revealed will, proclaimed holy, and so are to be judged of by us as truly regenerate and born again. And how to reconcile this with God's secret will and the event, I shall after shew in a whole subsequent chapter in this discourse.
And these terms he useth of holy and unclean, not as if that our children were now typically, or only outwardly, to be esteemed holy.
The reality is now expressed, as in the New Testament it useth to be, by the name of the type thereof in the Old; for that general holiness of the Jews and their seed, in a distinction from heathen and their children, was then a type of that real holiness which true believers' children now have under the gospel, and therefore he expresseth this here by the same phrases used there. And the reason hereof, namely, that he intends an evangelical, and not an outward, legal holiness, such as was under the old in the type, is evident; for if it were legal holiness, it must be either ceremonial, or that moral holiness which was in Adam, which was a vacuity of original sin. Now, it is neither of these; it is not ceremonial, though he useth the terms of it, for the ceremonies being abolished, concerned them not. And moral holiness, in opposition to having original sin in them, he cannot mean; for the children of the godly are conceived in sin as well as others, though afterwards sanctified in the womb, which was typified out by the uncleanness of all children among the Jews for seven days.
He means therefore evangelical holiness, that though they be born in sin as others are, yet they are in part sanctified, or regenerate and made holy in state, and so are not in a state of sin, but of evangelical holiness in God's sight. I will not say that the particle 'Now they are holy,' the νῦν δε to have relation to the times of the gospel, because it may have another sense, yet I do not exclude that. Thus you have seen the solution of the case.
In the third place, by his determining the case thus, in the terms of the old law, you may easily see what the scruple was (which he had in his eye) which troubled these Corinthians, together with the true bottom ground of their scruple or doubt, to the removal of which ho intended this solution, as purposing to speak directly unto it; for the truth is, that these two cases, both about putting away unbelieving wives and husbands, as also concerning the children of parents whereof one was an unbeliever, were such, and so in view stated, as the letter of the Old Testament would seem to warrant, yea, commanded, the leaving or putting away the unbelieving party, and also the pronouncing their children so begotten unclean, although one party were a believer. For thus indeed it was among the Jews; for when in and after the captivity they had married strange heathen wives, and begotten children on them, you shall find, Ezra 10:3, that after a solemn fast they did covenant to 'put away all the wives, and the children begotten of them.' The like you have also Nehem. 9; and so the place in Malachi 2, where the prophet says that God 'sought a holy seed;' it is spoken upon this very occasion of marrying strange wives, ver. 11; and so it was that they profaned the holiness of that people by that mixture, as verse 11, both defiling themselves thereby and their seed also. And it is no wonder to imagine that, by occasion of and from those instances in the Old Testament, it was that these
Corinthians should take up these their scruples and fears, which occasioned this resolution of the apostle; for they had read the old law, and received and embraced the canon of it as scripture.
Therefore in this epistle he often referreth them to the rules and instances of it, as 1 Cor. 10:1; so 1 Cor. 9:9, 13, and chap. 10:18, he argues from something that was moral in the rules of the ceremonial law as still binding. And therefore the cases being in view the same, and they making these questions about them, which occasioned his writing about them, it seems clear to me that they were thereby stumbled, as knowing this to have been the law and manner among the Jews. And this is strengthened further by this, that in that case of divorces, in the words before this, their scruple about that did arise from the practice of the Jews, and what they usually did under the Old Testament, who ordinarily put away their wives; and so the
Corinthians might think that they therefore in like manner might.
And therefore he refers to what the Lord Christ had said unto the Jews themselves in that case, when he interpreted the law to them, that 'it was not so, ab initio, from the beginning.' And indeed no other ground can be imagined to have occasioned this scruple.
Some would have the scruple arise from the chapter afore, in that the apostle had there said, that in fornication one becomes one flesh with an harlot, and so that they from thence might imagine, that in their marriage communion, they being one flesh with an idolater, were defiled therein. But it is plain that these cases here about marriage were propounded to him by them before this epistle was written to them, as the first verse of this chapter tells us, and therefore could not be anything which should arise from what he had said, chap. 6, of this epistle which was now a-writing of. And further, that these
Jewish cases were the ground of their scruple appears also by this, that he professeth his resolution was such as he had no former ruled case, instance, or warrant for from the word; that is, it was a case to which neither Christ had spoken nor the old law, yea, the instances therein were rather against it. And therefore, whereas for the determination of that other case about divorces, he refers them to what Christ had said to the Jews, on the contrary for this, whereof
Christ had not spoken, nor had occasion to speak, the apostle by his apostolic spirit declares to these Gentiles, whom the ceremonial
Jewish law did not concern, that this Jewish law about unbelieving wives was not in force to them, that no believing husbands should or might put away their unbelieving wives, as the Jews were commanded to do, nor account the children unclean.
And to put the more observation upon it, he useth the Jewish phrases to express himself by, even then when he speaks point blank against the determination of their law, yea, affirms that the gospel afforded a privilege to a believer which that ceremonial strictness allowed not; even this, that by the believer, and for his sake, the unbeliever is sanctified to all ends of marriage; and that the covenant with the believer is so strong and full of grace, that it prevails to
convey the covenant of grace to the children, even in this case, wherein the law pronounced them unclean. Now the reason of this difference is evident, and lies in this, that marriages among the Jews came under a peculiar law, both judicial and ceremonial, proper to that state. Their church and commonwealth being of one and the same extent, the laws of their commonwealth were accommodated to the rules of church state, and so the laws of marriage and the children begotten by them were accordingly suited thereunto; so as children, and persons, who according to the church law were in a type, or otherwise unclean and unholy, even the marriages with them were also made unlawful marriages by the law of the state, and the children illegitimate, as being unclean in their church state, wherein they were to be pure, or not members. But this polity of the Jews reached not to the Gentiles to bind them at all, as the ceremonial law likewise did not. And therefore the rules about their marriage state and their children must run upon other grounds than did those of the Jews, and so the apostle intimates they did.
And to this purpose, in the fourth place, let us consider what might be the apostle's grounds, and the reason that he goes upon in the determination of this case. And how consonant this his decision is unto right reason, he took in all the several considerations about it, and so gave to marriage the things that are due unto marriage essentially, and yet to a believer the privileges due to a believer in a married estate.
1. He considers what is essential unto all marriage by the law of nature and God's institution at first, according to Christ's own interpretation, Mat. 10:3, that they are joined by an inviolable knot, two becoming 'one flesh,' so ver. 10, 11; and therefore a marriage once made between two, whereof the one is a believer, the other not, must needs hold, and oblige, from this general ground, which is common to all marriages; for they marry not as believers or unbelievers, but as men and women. So as the consideration of being a believer is not of the essence of marriage, but superinduced, and so is not of force to cause a departure from an unbeliever. For as this
apostle argues in another case, the law of Moses, which came after Abraham's gospel covenant, could not disannul that covenant, which was established four hundred years before, so conversion, and the entering into covenant with God for a man's own soul's salvation, hath nothing to do to dissolve the bonds and covenants of nature.
Grace dissolves not the bonds of nature, but strengthens and sanctifies them, and the duties of them, which further stood with all the reason in the world, especially considering the state and condition of these Gentiles, which stood thus: The gospel came among the Gentiles as already settled in commonwealths, and did call men aforehand set in several stations according to the laws and orders of commonwealths, by which marriages, as other conditions, were ratified and established, and so men's outward conditions were accordingly cast and settled. Now, coming thus upon men, and here and there singling out but a few by calling them and converting them, it was suitable to the glorious wisdom of God, not at all to make alterations in states or commonwealths by this their embracing of the gospel, but to let all obligations, civil and natural, stand in full force as before. And indeed, ver. 17, he shews this to be the ground of this his resolution of this case: 'As God hath called any, so let him walk; and so ordain I in all churches:' and ver. 20, 'Let every man abide in the same calling,' evil or natural, 'in which he was called by grace.' If a servant, so abide, care not for it; if a wife to an unbeliever, so abide. Christ may be thy husband notwithstanding, even as he says of servants, 'they are the Lord's freemen.' And among other reasons he suggesteth this, 'God hath called us to peace,' ver. 15; and therefore his calling us by the gospel it was to breed no disturbance in societies and commonwealths, nor such a confusion as the casting off such relations would have produced, and such as indeed would have turned the world upside down.
These rules you see the gospel proposeth concerning marriages, which how differing were they from those rules of marriage that God gave the Jews upon peculiar respects, and such as in their state could not meet with these inconveniences! For God found a people in bondage, kept distinct from those they lived with, and called them
forth to make a distinct commonwealth of themselves, to the end they might live apart from all nations, and 'dwell alone,' as the expression concerning them is in Deuteronomy, and to that end gave this as a fundamental law, which necessarily tended to keep them still distinct, namely, not to marry with strangers, for fear of a mingled seed. And this not only upon national considerations, but in a type religious, because they were to be a holy people, 'a holy nation,' singled out and separated from all nations, and their seed to be holy also in a type. And this typical holiness was to be held forth in a separation from all strange wives as unclean, and in keeping their seed unmixed. And therefore, Mal. 2:11, they are said to 'profane the holiness of the Lord' by marrying of strange wives. If any, therefore, amongst them had married a strange wife, this had bred an irreparable confusion in his posterity to all ages, by mingling a holy seed with an unclean. And therefore even as for the peace sake of that their state and commonwealth, these Jews were bidden to put away such wives, and the children so begotten on them, as unclean.
Even upon the same ground were these Corinthians and other Gentile Christians, for the preservation of the peace of Gentile states and commonwealths, to keep them, and not to put them away.
Then, secondly, the apostle withal takes into consideration the privilege of believerss marriages; and therein we may consider three things.
1. The royal privilege God had endowed believers' marriages with, having sanctified them, and sanctified them to this end, to convey the covenant to their children, that so he might continue to himself a holy seed out of them, which privileges continue to them under the gospel, as founded not only upon a correspondency to the Jews' covenant, but even to the same primitive law concerning marriage from the beginning, even under the law of nature, when God, as he ordained marriage to men, to propagate men, so to holy men, to propagate a holy seed. Therefore Malachi argues it from the institution of marriage at first, only with this difference, that in innocency it was by nature, or by a natural covenant, but now by a
free covenant of grace, drawing his elect through their loins, yet with a like covenant thereunto. God resolved to keep to the law given at first; only now, out of grace, that as holy Adam should have a holy seed, so holy men should propagate a seed to God; and this, I take it, is the reason why Malachi urgeth the sin of it upon the Jews (ver. 11), from the example of the first marriage. Thus, immediately after the fall, God calls out Seth to propagate a holy seed, Gen. 5:1; and therefore Seth his seed are called sons of God, as the seed of Cain were called sons of men; for marriage to them was ordained to propagate sons to God, as to the other to propagate mankind, or sons to men; but how this is to be understood I shall shew anon.
2. And, secondly, he declares withal, that this privilege is so prevailing in the behalf of the elect, and for the believing parents' sake, that it takes place against the curse and defilement, which else would come upon the marriage and the children, from the unbelieving party. The goodness of God herein he declareth to be such, and his grace and love so prevailing, that this his covenant towards believers holds not only when both parties are such; but prevails against, and countervails the unbeliever's unsanctifiedness and curse (in this case proposed) and carries it from him, so as he is sanctified in her, and she not defiled by him; and the children are holy through her covenant, rather than unclean by his defilement; partus sequitur meliorem partem, the issue takes after the better part, through grace, which prevails in this against sin, even as in other things it doth, in and towards the elect. So in the works or actions that come from us, which are the fruit of our souls, it prevails to make the action accounted holy, notwithstanding the defilement of the unregenerate part. And thus in like manner in these, the fruit of our bodies, it prevails to convey the covenant, and to make the child accepted, notwithstanding the father's curse; and such is the law of privileges among men, favores sunt ampliandi, favours granted are always to be interpreted as extended to the utmost, especially God's privileges of grace, which then shew themselves to be most of grace, when they hold and prevail against sin and the curse most, for then grace abounds most.
Especially, 3, in such a case as this was, for when one being married before, is afterward converted (for that was the case of these
Corinthians), if then God, by the law of nature, holds them still to the marriage, which through their ignorance they entered into, and by his providence were found in when called, then by the law of grace
(and yet of free grace) he will not withhold the privilege of believers' marriages, but will sanctify it unto them as if both were believers; for none shall ever lose by any inconvenient necessity they are cast into, in obedience to his command. And thus to bind and hold believers to continue in such unequal yokes, and not to take the liberty of divorce, which the Roman laws did give them, must needs be to them full of manifold inconveniences. God, therefore, graciously resolves to recompense this; and seeing that primitive law of marriage should bind them to abide with their husbands, the primitive privilege of marriage shall by a new covenant of grace be continued to them.
And, therefore, though this will no way warrant entering into such marriages (for when out of choice the sons of God did so, God cursed their marriages, Gen. 6, in their issue, and 'all flesh became corrupt;' yet when so married before conversion, or repenting after such a marriage, they may notwithstanding expect this privilege still to continue unto them and theirs. And unto this case only he speaks here, namely, when one already 'hath an unbelieving wife,' not that is to have, or is as yet to choose and marry one, ver. 11, 12, and determines, verse last of this chapter, that when they are fully free, they should 'marry in the Lord.'
One thing yet remains to be spoken unto, and will make up a fifth head, and that is, what is the force, scope, or purport of these two particles, 1, ἐπεὶ, else, as it stands in the first sentence concerning children, 'else were your children unclean,' and how it knits this sentence with the former, or what reference it hath to those words,
'the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife;' and, 2, of that other, νῦνδἐ, but now, in that latter clause about them, 'but now they are holy;' and what connection or aspect these two particles have one with or towards each other, or the foregoing words.
For the first: there are two scopes or meanings which that particle else will bear, whereof each may rationally stand and serve either of them for the point in hand.
First, Some do take the word ἐπεὶ, else (as here it comes in), logically, that is, as a particle or note of an evident reason, argument, or a causal conjunction, importing an evident proof, or logical demonstration, brought to confirm and convince them of the truth of that foregoing assertion, that 'the husband is sanctified by the wife; for else,' says he, 'your children were unclean, but now they are holy;' as if the apostle meant to argue, ab absurdo, from an apparent absurdity that would follow upon the contrary, and which would cross and contradict a common received principle among them, and in all the churches, which he knew that therefore they would not deny, namely, that their children were holy; and thus his argument stands from the greater to the less, even from that which was a greater fruit and privilege of their marriage, that their children should be accounted personally holy, which truth was already known and acknowledged by them. And, therefore, much more the communion with an unbeliever's person in marriage must needs be sanctified to them, and undefiled to their use; it being more that their children, through the ordination of grace, should be truly sanctified, than that an unbeliever should be sanctified to their use only; yea, if those very children, begotten by such a communion, be holy, notwithstanding their natural defilement and curse they inherit by birth as sons of Adam, then the marriage communion itself must needs be holy unto them, for if the issue and the fruit be such, then the act of generation, the means of deriving this, must needs be thought to be lawful and sanctified. And thus the particle ἐπεὶ, or else, is used and taken in this epistle, chap. 5, where our apostle, shewing the lawfulness of conversing with idolaters in civil ways, as here with unbelievers in marriage, he in like manner argues, ab absurdo, 'else,' says he, 'you must go out of the world.' He mentions it as that which to reason and common principles was an apparent absurdity; and this sense and connection of this particle doth make a strong convincing demonstration of the point we have in hand; for it
imports that it was a commonly received maxim in those times, and which these Corinthians had not at all questioned, but took for granted, namely, that their children were holy; and that, therefore, the apostle argues from it, as a thing taken for granted, in that according to the settled practice of those times they had seen, and had been themselves eye-witnesses of their receiving into communion with the church by baptism, in their own and all other churches, and that by warrant from the apostles. And we find by experience, that such principles in religion are as commonly received, and generally acknowledged and practised, that we believe them without hesitation, and do usually take for granted; and so it might fall out, that these Corinthians might have a peculiar scruple about their communion with their husbands, when not of their children's uncleanness, who had hitherto been begotten by them; and it is also very likely, that the apostle might thus argue from the common received practice and opinion of that and other churches about their children, and so make use of it as a reason to settle their consciences in that other part of communion with idolatrous husbands; for so in like manner he argueth, chap. 11, 'We have no such custom, nor the churches of God,' ver. 16. For the churches receiving all their customs or practices from the apostles, what was a general custom of churches in those times, might safely he taken for a rule and warrant; for else the apostles would not generally and universally have established it. We find the apostle in like manner taking advantage of the like received principles and practices, to argue for the resurrection: 1 Cor. 15:14, 'If there be no resurrection, then is your faith in vain;' he argues from what he knew they would not call in question, and from the experience and evidence of their own former faith and believing. And further, saith he, ver. 29, 'Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead; if the dead rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead?' You see he therein argues from a known principle about baptism (whatever the meaning of the place be) received amongst them. I therefore will not exclude this scope of the connection here in the word else; and, indeed, if it hath this connection and meaning, it were the more express for the point in hand.
Notwithstanding, I have thought that if their consciences fell into doubts about the defilement of their communion with such husbands, they then were like to scruple as much the state of those children begotten by them. It being also, as we see, a scruple apt to rise in believers' hearts unto this day, whether the curse of their unbelieving husbands or wives should not rather come upon their children, than a blessing from themselves. And this of the two is usually the greater scruple, And it is very likely that among those queries they sent to the apostle they had mentioned this of their children's uncleanness, as an argument against their abiding with such husbands; in that this inconvenience would also follow, that all their children would be unclean. But that which especially moves me is, that there was the same ground for the scruple about their children's unclean state that was for their husband's defilement to them; seeing in that case of the Jews, which these scruples were founded upon, both wives and children were alike accounted unclean, and so to be put away. Hence, therefore, I incline to take these words, 'Else your children were unclean, but now are they holy,' to be intended as those former words are in the first part of the verse, even both together and alike to be a direct and immediate answer unto two several scruples, both about their children's estate, as likewise about their communion with their husbands, about both which the Corinthians had written alike unto him; and so to be rather a distinct part of the resolution of the case, than only a reason of that former sentence, 'The unbelieving husband is sanctified,' &c., and to be as positive and as plain and direct an explication and declaration of his judgment concerning the state of their children, upon occasion of their scruple therein, as in that other part in the words afore there is a declaration of his judgment about the sanctified use of the husband; even that the children are holy, as well as that the husband is sanctified, thereby alike to take away the scruple about both, and the more to set forth the privilege of believers, which his scope was to advance and illustrate. Only these particles, 'Else your children wore unclean,' and, 'But now they are holy,' are put in farther, to shew that it was a singular privilege, and that it was an exception to some other rules which generally indeed
hold true, and which otherwise would have held true, as they imagined. And unto such a sense or purpose as this will these two particles, else and but now, as fitly serve in the common use and acception of them as to any other. For in special cases that fall out, and are as exceptions to general rules, and wherein there is but some one peculiar special consideration that causeth the varying from those rules, we use such particles as these are to express those exceptions by. And so we clear those cases the better when we thereby grant what otherwise useth to fall out, and by expressing their swerving from such rules, do shew the special ground upon which the exception is founded; and then we use to say, as the apostle here, else it would be thus, but now, upon this special consideration, it is otherwise. So that the particle else notes out and implies tacitly, that it is indeed generally true of all other children, that they are unclean, by reason of their parents' state, being heathens, and thus much he implicitly granteth to them. And so this other particle, but now, refers unto some special consideration upon which their children, contrary unto the ordinary rule, became holy.
I say, 1, he secretly grants, that all children of two parents who are unbelievers are unclean; and it is as if he should have said, that if the case had not been such, that one of the parents were a believer, then indeed the children had certainly been unclean, as others; but one of them being a believer, which is the case proposed, now they are holy; else, that is, if one parent were not a believer, and God had not sanctified the unbeliever to them, 'they had been unclean,' but now, this case is thus stated, 'they are holy.' He shews that generally indeed it is true that children are unclean; but yet notwithstanding in this case their children are holy. And thus he not only clears the case the more distinctly, while he thus grants something, but further illustrates their privilege by way of distinction from the children of others, idolaters and unbelievers, when both parents are such, in that it is not simply related that their children were holy, but with a note of difference and separation comparatively to others' children. And this is the reason he useth two words and expressions, one negative,
not unclean, and positive, the are holy; whereas otherwise one of these expressions would have been sufficient.
And 2, ἐπεὶ, else, pointeth unto some consideration, which in that case maketh the exception, and which makes the difference, that their children should be holy, which else they should not be; and is as if he had said, It is not of and for yourselves that a believer comes to have this privilege, but from hence, that God hath sanctified the unbelieving parent, through grace, to this end. So as this same else implies ft hazard which they narrowly escaped; and that if God had considered the unbeliever only in it, their children would have been unclean; but God looks at his own ordination and purpose of free grace unto believers, having out of that his grace ordained to convey the covenant to their children; whereas otherwise, had God looked at the unbelievers in it, or their own desert, and had not graciously ordained this favour and privilege to believing parents, they then would have been unclean, because, according to the tenor of the legal curse by nature, the curse would have fallen upon them. 'But now they are holy,' the husband being a believer, sanctified even to this end. And so the word else notes not out so much a logical consequence, by shewing what absurdity in reason would follow upon it, but rather what otherwise would be the real consequent following upon the thing itself: that the curse of the unbeliever would indeed otherwise have prevailed to make the children unclean, did not God in special favour sanctify him to this end, by reason of the believing party. And so I judge the former sentence, 'The husband is sanctified,' &c., to be the reason of this latter, 'Your children are holy,' rather than this latter of that. And I take this to be the sense rather than the former, because the word ἄρα is added to ἐπεὶ, the force of which word is not rendered in our English translation. But Beza hath done it thus: else certainly, or indeed, your children were unclean. He adds certainly or indeed unto else, so that these words were a tacit concession or grant of children's uncleanness in other cases, and so came in as a further amplification or enlargement of a believer's privilege, not only shewing what privilege they have in opposition to unbelievers, whose children are unclean, but believers'