-- CHAPTER V: Reasons drawn out of that foregoing exposition of 1 Cor. 7:14
holy; but further, even in such a case as this, wherein an unbeliever being joined in marriage with a believer, and so would according to the curse of the law bring a curse on the children, yet even therein
God had vouchsafed a further favour, and sanctified the husband, and pronounced the children holy, who else for the unbeliever's sake would be unclean; than which nothing could be said more to enhance this favour, and the privilege of a believer in this respect. His scope being to put the casting of the balance for their children's estate, which the unbeliever's curse would render unclean, upon the favour of God to a believer, even to sanctify an unbeliever, their privilege swayeth it and prevaileth. And so else indeed comes in here, just as it would in this fallowing instance parallel to it, as if one speaking of the actions of a regenerate man, in all which the flesh bears the half share, as having an influence into all he doth, and in respect of whose concurrency, according to the law and covenant of works, the better part, and the good that is in them, would be so polluted, that God would reckon them as a menstruous cloth, filthy and defiled, should yet notwithstanding say of them, that by the grace of the gospel, the regenerate man hath this privilege, that the sin shall be pardoned, and the good accepted in and through Christ. Now, I say, as one in declaring this case might say, the regenerate man is so far accepted in Christ, that notwithstanding the influence of the unregenerate part, his actions are sanctified in Christ, which else would be unclean, but now they are holy, in such a sense doth it in like manner come in here, concerning their children, 'else were they unclean, but now they are holy.'
CHAPTER V
Reasons drawn out of that foregoing exposition of 1 Cor. 7:14.—That the holiness there attributed to believers' children, is true, and real, evangelical holiness.—Other interpretations refuted.
Now out of these explanations of the words laid together, I come in the next place to form up some reasons (which was the second head I propounded for the discussing this point) out of this place, such as this place affords, namely, to prove that a true holiness of these children of believers is here intended. The reasons have been couched, I confess, in the former considerations, yet for the help of the weak I will draw them out more plainly, and lay them together.
1. You heard before that this holiness is in a further sense attributed to these children, than the being sanctified, which is here spoken of the unbelieving parent, is attributed to them; and that the one is but an instrumental holiness, for an use passively subserving, but that this attributed to the children is a personal privilege belonging to them, in that they are called holy in themselves. Now, then, let this attribute of holiness, which is given to the persons of the children, be allowed them, but in as true and genuine a sense as that sanctification of the unbeliever's use to the believer is taken in, and then this I contend for will necessarily follow. Let, I say, both holinesses be but weighed in the same balance of the sanctuary, and estimated but by the same rule of proportion, in their several kinds, and let this holiness of the children be acknowledged to be but as true and as good a holiness for personal holiness (and such as the word usually accounteth unto persons), as that being sanctified which is spoken of the unbelieving party is said to be, in respect of some use or end; that is, let the one in its kind be answering to that which the other is in its kind, and so to be of as true a kind of personal holiness as that other is a true instrumental holiness; and then it will necessarily follow that it is the holiness we seek. For when the unbeliever is said to be sanctified in the wife, the true meaning is, that the use of such an husband in and to the wife the word doth account to be holy, and God looks at it accordingly as holy, and accepts it, that is, with such an holiness as is proper to actions, or such an acceptation as is of things used holily, or tending to an holy end. Why then, when the children are said to be holy personally, should not the meaning be that their persons are accounted holy by God with such an holiness as is proper to persons, and so that they
are accepted by him as personally holy, even as truly as the other's use was so accounted by him? Why should not both be measured by the same mete-wand?
2. Add to this, secondly, that this holiness is a personal privilege, attributed with a difference from an unbeliever's child (as you have heard) by virtue of their parent's privilege. Now, let all the world find me out any other sense or respect wherein the gospel should call their children holy as a privilege vouchsafed them, and in opposition to which the children of unbelievers, though lawfully begotten, are called unclean, than this of true and evangelical holiness. Surely the difference between two unbelievers married, and this believer married to an unbeliever here, must necessarily run thus, that—
(1.) In the use of her husband she hath a privilege which unbelievers have not, that he is sanctified to her; but two unbelievers, though lawfully married, are not thus sanctified each to other: their communion is lawful, indeed, in itself, and so is their marriage, as being approved by the word, but yet their marriage communion is defiled with sin, as other their lawful actions are, and so they are unsanctified each to other. But it is not thus with the communion of a believer married to an unbeliever, which is not only lawful in itself, but sanctified, and on her part accounted a holy communion by the word, and so reckoned to her by God, and by her subserving an holy end God hath ordained it for.
(2.) Now then, secondly, let but the like parallel difference proportionably run in the children of the one and the other (which is the apostle's scope), namely, that unbelievers' children, though not bastards or unlawfully begotten, are yet unclean in a further respect, which the gospel counts an uncleanness, but the children are not only legitimate, or lawfully begotten, but further also they are holy, and that in the language of the Holy Ghost. Now search the Scriptures, and find me out a holiness that should personally be attributed thus to believers' children, as their peculiar honour, and as a personal privilege different from unbeliever's children (who yet are
not bastards, and yet unclean); I say, find out any other holiness that can be given besides this which I aim to establish, that their persons are sanctified, and so to be reckoned by us, and I have done. True it is that the ceremonial law did in a type call all the seed of the Jews holy, and the whole seed of the heathen unclean, and in the type did put the very same difference in terms used here by the apostle.
(3.) But that will afford a third reason that the apostle intends to shew that our children are to be accounted really holy, and unbelievers' children really unclean; for that outward ceremonial holiness and uncleanness of the law did typify out true evangelical holiness and uncleanness under the gospel, else he would never have expressed himself in those very terms; yea, the apostle doth here call believers' children holy, and the children of others unclean, in flat opposition to a Jewish case, and contradicts their law in it, in terminis. Neither can we find that the apostle under the gospel did use or apply the terms of the types except to the very things typified by them; as when Christ was called 'our passover,' the meaning was, that Christ was that true passover which that of theirs signified. So when our evangelical worship was called sacrifice, the meaning was that that was the true sacrifice. So, in like manner, when the gospel speaks of our children in the same terms that the law used of the difference of their children then from others, and with the same difference that the law in the type puts between children of the Jews and others, it must necessarily intend the reality of what was thereby typified; and so that our children are to be esteemed truly holy, and unbelievers' truly unclean. For he could not use the same very terms of the same kind of persons (in the same case then and now), and intend them in the same typical sense and meaning that the letter of the ceremonial law intended, for that in respect of the letter of it was abolished under the gospel, especially to the Gentiles; and therefore he would not have used them to the same kind of persons in any other sense than was intended as the thing typified in that law, which can be no other than this, that our children are really holy, and others unclean, as theirs once were ceremonially.
(4.) Add to this, fourthly, the help of that other scripture, Rom. 11:16, where the apostle, speaking of the fathers conveying the covenant to the children, says, 'If the root be holy, so are the branches.' And this is spoken of children to be converted under the gospel. When, therefore, we find the very same thing said of the Jews' seed to come under the gospel, that for the believing parents' sake, who is the root, the children (the branches) are holy, why, then, should any other sense be put upon the like that is said of the believing Corinthians here?
I add but this as the conclusion of all. Observe how for the declaring and publishing this eminent privilege of believers and their children, the Holy Ghost watcheth the most full, fit, and advantageous occasion to make the most of it, and set it off, that could be taken; that not only when two believers are joined, but even then when an unbeliever with a believer, does this privilege hold good, so abounding is the grace of God, and so prevailing against his curse.
This meaning will yet further be established by the taking away and confuting those false interpretations that have been put upon these words, which is the third head to be spoken to.
1. Many of our own orthodox divines have thought the apostle's scope in this his resolution of the case to be, to shew that the marriage of two such continues lawful by the word, and so that their conjugal communion is sanctified, that is, lawful too, and their children legitimate, not a spurious bastardy or unclean issue; and that this is all that is meant by those expressions, the husband is sanctified in the wife, that it is a lawful marriage, and the children are holy, that is, legitimate, not bastards or unclean; and so these expressions to be but an allusion to that which in the ceremonial law was said of such, viz., to express the like, yea, this very difference to be holden now under the gospel between bastards and children to be esteemed legitimate, that was then put between base-begotten and the rest of the Jews' children, Deut. 23:2. A bastard was then forbidden to enter into the congregation, even unto the tenth
generation; and to be prohibited their temple communion, and to be reckoned unclean, were both for the thing itself, and also in phrase of speech with them, all one. And these divines would have the holiness of children here, to be put to express their legitimation, and the opposite unto it here, namely, uncleanness, to be put for bastardy.
Now, as touching this interpretation, I shall endeavour, 1. To confute it, and shew that this was not the main scope of the apostle.
2. Remove that appearance which seems to make for it.
3. Yield how far the sense may be taken in.
1. For the first, That the apostle's scope should be by holiness to mean more than legitimation, and more than bastardy by uncleanness.
(1.) He had otherwise attributed no more privilege to a believer here, in his marriage and children, than to an unbeliever; whereas (as hath been abundantly shewn) a different privilege of believers is here for their comfort held forth, and not only a bare lawfulness granted them in their marriage, which is common to others; a different privilege they have in the use of marriage, and in their issue by marriage. In the use of marriage it is sanctified in and by them, which of unbelievers (though their marriage be lawful) cannot be said, their persons being defiled. In speaking likewise of the issue of marriage, children, he must needs mean more than simply their being lawfully begotten, which unbelievers' children are, and not bastards. And this, as a peculiar privilege of their children, is expressed (as some have observed) in this word your; yours who are believers.
(2.) And secondly, by attributing this as a privilege to a believer, he improves the case, not to settle their consciences only, that both that act and children begotten were legitimate, but further to comfort them, they are sanctified and holy. Yea, and to answer the uttermost
ground of their scruple, which was about their children's uncleanness, in respect to their estates and the ordinances, since the ground of it was from that of the strange children among the Jews, who were put forth from the congregation as an unclean seed.
(3.) Thirdly, Otherwise he had in this said no more than the civil laws then in force did, for they pronounced the marriage lawful, and the children no bastards. Now his answer surely is more than law, it is gospel; and this privilege here of holiness, more than the civil law afforded children; for it is a gospel privilege, as the very terms imply.
(4.) Fourthly, The terms he useth are to critics very observable to this purpose, that to ἀκάθαρτα, unclean, he opposeth not κάθαρα, pure or clean, as in propriety of speech they are opposed; but, according to the language of the Jews, he opposeth holiness to it. Fornication and adultery are called uncleanness, ἀκαθαρσία, Eph. 5:3. Now if an unclean issue by fornication or adultery had been meant, he would have opposed purity, or cleanness, or some such word unto it; but in that he opposeth holy to it, which was a word out of the road as it were, because so the Jews opposed in their ceremonial law ἅγια and ἀκάθαρτα, it evidently implies that he meant something more than legitimation, as by the holiness of children the Jews also did.
2. And secondly, for the instance of bastards, uncleanness in the ceremonial law, which seems to countenance this interpretation, that can no way be brought to expound the uncleanness or holiness here, nor in any fit sense he applied to express this difference between children merely as lawfully or unlawfully begotten.
(1.) Not in the literal sense of the ceremonial law; for that uncleanness of bastards therein mentioned imported more than an uncleanness of children's legitimation; it was a ceremonial, religious, and typical uncleanness; and, on the contrary, the holiness of the Jews' legitimate children was also religious and typical, and so imported more than a mere legitimation of children, in that they were called holy, as they were to be admitted to ordinances as an
holy seed. Therefore, for the apostle to take up these terms to express the mere legitimation or illegitimation of children under the gospel, had been short of the sense of that law, which should then speak it in one sense, and he in another. The holiness of the Jews' children, which was opposed to the uncleanness of bastards, was more than a mere legitimateness, or a being lawfully begotten, as is evident; for they had it as they were Abraham's seed, and so within the covenant.
Had it had not been thus, then likewise the heathen's children, if lawfully begotten, had been holy; whereas 'an Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever;' they were to be kept out, as well as bastards; so that a being lawfully begotten was not all that went to make children accounted holy; for then all legitimate children had been holy, and therefore it must needs be too much to call all children holy, simply in that respect, or with any eye unto that law. Besides, by that law a bastard's seed, though he himself were married, should be unclean to the tenth generation.
(2.) It, secondly, cannot be spoken according to the mystical meaning, that they should be thus called, or in respect to what under those types are intended. That were to say, that all bastards only are now to be counted unclean, and unregenerated, and, on the contrary, all children lawfully begotten to be holy and regenerate; for the uncleanness and holiness then did typify real holiness and uncleanness now; neither of which any of any side, either for baptism or against it, durst ever affirm.
But to retort this; is it not therefore more likely his meaning should be, that as all heathen children as well as bastards were to be reckoned unclean, with a religious uncleanness in respect to partaking of ordinances, which they were debarred from; and, on the contrary, the lawfully begotten children of Jews were alone counted holy, yet not simply in respect of being lawfully begotten, but because they were withal the legitimate issue of Jews, who were the sons of Abraham, and were therefore to be then admitted unto ordinances
(and all this in a typical respect); so now that under the gospel should be typified out that all unbelievers' children, and perhaps unlawful issues of believers, should be accounted unregenerate, and so not admitted to ordinances; but the children of believers lawfully begotten should be counted not only legitimate before God and men, but also holy with real holiness, and so admitted to the ordinances of regeneration? Sure I am, that holiness then imported a privilege which Jews' children had above all other children, though the issue of lawful marriage. And therefore to me it seems as certain that the holiness here must also as necessarily import a privilege which believers' children have (besides that of legitimation), which others the children of unbelievers have not, though lawfully begotten; and what this should be other than this, to be esteemed truly holy indeed, through their parents' covenant, let all the world shew me.
(3.) In the third place, I willingly grant both, [1.] That when he calls the children of a believing parent holy here, he intends to shew that they were lawful children. But how? Not as the sole adequate meaning of that expression, but as included under it, as the lesser useth to be under the greater, or as the foundation of a house is included in the term house. And as if we should say an heir, the prince, it imports a child lawfully begotten, and includes and supposes the son of a king, so when he here says they are holy, his meaning is not only that they are legitimate children, as any others born in wedlock are, but further, for their comfort, they are to be esteemed holy children, and therefore he would have them think much more that they were lawful; for legitimation of children by an estate of wedlock is under the gospel as necessary a requisite to this dignity of being accounted holy, as the ground-colour is to varnish, and is such a prærequisitum in subjecto. Even as to be lawfully begotten is a necessary supposition in law before a child can inherit, and in a prince's eon is the fundamental requisite of his dignity, so by the ordinance of God also; for to be lawfully begotten is the foundation of this privilege of being accounted holy, and so must necessarily be supposed.
[2.] And, secondly, I grant that bastards are unclean in the sense here meant, though not mainly intended to be spoken of. For I conceive that marriage is God's ordinance, sanctified by him to believers alone, for to derive this blessing; as was said out of Malachi
2:15, 'He appointed it for a holy seed.' And therefore I grant that base children, though of believers, come not to be partakers of this privilege, but are to be reckoned as unbelievers are, namely, unclean, and that that was the meaning of the type. Not but that God may turn them, and make them holy, as he often does unbelievers' seed, as having his elect among them, which when he doth, they are to be received and accounted holy; as Deodatus Augustinus, base begotten, was converted and baptized; but yet they inherit not this privilege by birth, neither because they are children of such parents are they so to be accounted; but we are to reckon them unclean until actually converted, which they may be, as Jephtha was; which may turn to this use to us, to be a motive against fornication. Therefore, secondly, some late Anabaptists do say, that his meaning is, that as the husband is sanctified to the believing wife (that is, to her use), though he be in his person sinful, so these children are in like manner sanctified to their parents for their use and service. But how fond is this opinion also! For what a wide difference is there between these two phrases. To say, one is sanctified in and to another (that is, for such an use, which is the thing spoken of the unbelieving husband, even as 1 Tim. 4:5, every creature is said to be sanctified to a believer; that is, to his use; so as his using them is holy in him, and to him), and to say of the children afterwards, not as they are sanctified in or to their parents, as being so only in their relation, but that they are holy, who else would be unclean? Which being said simply of them, 'they are holy,' and being spoken of persons, and that in a way of variation of the phrase from the former, cannot but imply that they are in their own persons to be accounted holy, not in or to their parents sanctified, but in themselves simply holy through the conveyance of God's covenant from the parent to the child.
2. If we compare this with the parallel case in Nehemiah and Ezra, which the apostle had in his eyes (as hath been shewn), this cannot
be all the meaning of it. For when he would have them put away the seed of strange wives, as unclean, the meaning could not only be, they were unclean or unsanctified in their use to them; but further, as persons in their own state unclean, in respect of God's ordinance and law, and in a religious respect in themselves.
3. We must never put a sense upon the Holy Ghost's meaning, which falls short of what may be supposed was aimed at. Now in what rational sense can it be supposed, that these parents, or any
Christians, should conceive these children unclean in their use and service, and obedience performed to them? How an unbelieving husband might be unsanctified to them in marriage communion, and they defiled thereby, might easily be conceived, in that they became one flesh with them, and so a member of Christ is made one with a limb of Satan; but the use of, and converse with, the children being but in a way of outward service and obedience, such as these
Corinthians had with all heathen servants, neighbours, &c., the children could not upon any ground be supposed unclean in their uses as to them, the parents of them, or in the performance of mutual duty each to other, no more than their neighbours and servants were in all civil offices that passed between them. Their scruple therefore must needs be understood of the state and condition of the children begotten upon such parents in a religious respect, whether they were not to be esteemed unclean, and in that state to God-ward in respect of the covenants that the children of strange wives were among the Jews.
Therefore, thirdly, the papists have invented another interpretation.
The husband is sanctified, that is, say they, in hope of his conversion, and therefore the apostle exhorts her to abide with him; and so the children also may, by her staying with her husband, and so educating them, become holy, and so are holy in hope, who else would be unclean, and are in danger to prove idolaters, if the wife depart from their father, and leave them to him.