-- CHAPTER VI: That two things are intended in that text of 1 Cor. 7:14.
But first, to say they are holy; that is, by the stay of their parents together they may be such, otherwise they are unclean, that is, there is danger that they may be unclean. How wide is this?
And, secondly, to say they may be converted, and so in that sense to be holy, is true of unbelievers' children, as well as of these.
Yea, thirdly, so by being unclean should be meant by the rule of opposition, that otherwise there were no hope of their conversion if she depart, which is false.
Fourthly, The case must be altered if this be the meaning; for it must then always be withal supposed, that the children are left to be educated by the unbelieving party; for simply by her leaving an unbeliever, if she have the children with her, there were no danger of their unconversion, but the more hope. So as this sense will not hold unless withal the case be put, that the children are left with the unbelieving party, which that a believing husband should do, and not take his children with him, is not always likely. But the apostle supposeth not, nor mentions any such case, but simply the marriage act, that they need not fear defilement to themselves in it from an unbeliever, or to their children begotten by it.
Fifthly, Of the hopes of the unbelievers' conversion he speaks afterwards, and makes a new and further argument for it, ver. 16, and propounds it but uncertainly, What knowest thou? &c., but here he says, They are holy.
CHAPTER VI
That two things are intended in that text of 1 Cor. 7:14.—What God's thoughts are of believers' children, and the rule by which he would have us to judge of them.—What is the judgment we are to have of the children of godly parents upon this declaration of God concerning them, that they are holy.—To what extent this
proposition is to be amplified; that it is not meant universally of all, but indefinitely of some only, though the greater number.—What agreement and harmony there is between our judgment of the holiness of believers' children, and what in reality of the event proves true concerning them.
This being thus gained, that evangelical holiness of election and regeneration is here meant and intended; now it may be further considered as a ground for a further inquiry, that these words, their
'children are holy,' may fall under a double distinct notion or consideration. Either, 1. They may be taken as looking upwards, as wherein God expresseth to us his own thoughts about such children, who are or shall he really made holy by him, and whom the Holy Ghost, when he speaks it, hath only in his eye and intent, though he points to the whole lump.
And so taken, the words respect wholly and only the reality of the thing in the event; that is, only the true holiness of those children who are so indeed, or those children only of such parents who shall surely be made holy.
Or else, 2, the words may look downward, as importing a duty on our parts, and declaring what God's will is that we should think of such children; both in our judgments to account them holy, as a thing meet for us to think of them; and upon that esteem to carry ourselves towards them as towards saints, and to perform such duties to them as they are capable of, and as are due to such saints. In a word, in the one sense they may be supposed to declare God's mind and thoughts concerning these children themselves and their estates; in the other, they declare his mind about us, and what our duty is to think of them. In the one, they are a mere simple expression of God's unto us; in the other, they become a rule to guide our thoughts concerning them.
Now these are two distinct things, and will much vary the case; for whilst God speaks the one, he hath in his eye only those very children
whom he makes holy, if the words be taken as a declaration of his thoughts. But in the other, as he lays this duty on us, he hath every child of a believer in his eye, so far as to enjoin us this duty, to think any one in particular, though not all in general, to be holy; even, therefore, because that God expresseth his own thoughts so indefinitely and reservedly, as that we know not whom he means, our duty is, to think so of any of them. Now, that both these are here intended is evident.
1. That the apostle should speak these words in relation to our judgment, and intend them as a rule for it, this seems very manifest; for unto the judgment or sentence which the word pronounceth of things, are we to conform our judgments. For revealed things belong to us and to our children: Deut. 29:29, 'The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.' Wherefore, seeing God in his revealed will hath declared thus concerning them, the least that can be judged to be the meaning of it, must needs be, what God would have us to think and judge; as the apostle says of the Philippians when he had called them saints:
Philip. 1 ver. 1, 'Even as it is meet,' says he, 'for me to think of you all,' ver. 7. I may allude to what was said to Peter; Acts 10:15, 'What God calls holy, call not thou common or unclean.' God often speaks of things in Scripture as we do, or as we are to judge of them: 'Destroy not him for whom Christ died,' Rom. 14:15. It is not meant of a destruction really, for none of those can be destroyed, but we are to judge it such, and look on it as such, according to what our action tends to, and to forbear such and such actions which look as if they would destroy him.
It is evident also in this, that the apostle's scope is to give such a like title or badge of difference between believers' and unbelievers' children, according to the different state of the parents in spiritual respects, as useth to be given to all sorts of children, according to the different ranks of their parents in worldly respects; which badges, we know, lie in esteem, and it is the intent of them, though withal they
carry a reality of honour and possessions with them. And therefore, as men, or as we, when we speak of men by the world's book or rule, do call and account the children of noblemen noble, for they are to be reckoned such in their sphere; as Paul calls Festus, 'most noble,' Acts
25:26; so spiritual men and a church are here spoken to by Paul, to call and esteem the children of believers holy, and to account of them in their sphere according to God's book. He writes here to the Corinthians as a church, thus to think of them, and so to own them.
2. And then, secondly, that these words do carry withal in them an expression of God's real thoughts and purposes about the state of believers' children, so as it is not a mere reputation holiness which we are to attribute to them, but a real holiness which God scatters among them, and that the apostle hath in his eye. This is evident; for God would not otherwise have declared or pronounced thus indefinitely of them that they are holy, nor given us such a rule to regulate our judgments of them by, nor called on us to believe and think so of them, if there were not something really peculiar in it; if true and real holiness were not found more commonly and ordinarily amongst them by virtue of their parents' covenant, than among any other sort of people in the world.
For, first, God useth to call things as they are.
Secondly, His revealed will is not wholly wide from his secret will, nor from the truth of things in the event. In his revealed, he always declares only that which is; he never gave promise but it had a reality answering it. Never any special promise, as this is, but something more special was in it. His secret will and his revealed will, do one come near the other; there is a ground of truth in the one, for the revelation made in the other.
Thirdly, For us to give the title of holy unto any, is to give the name of the Lord to them, which he would not have his church led into the error of taking in vain.
Fourthly, Nor would God give a title wholly without the real thing; he would not have given a peculiar title of holiness to these children, if he had not bestowed the thing itself more ordinarily upon them, than upon any or upon all sorts of people else in the world. He would not speak of them, and in title set them up as great princes, if they had not amongst them an inheritance and possession answerable; this were to expose his name to scorn.
Fifthly, Much less would he carry it as a special favour done, and privilege vouchsafed, peculiar to the parents because believers, if it holds not really true of their children in some eminent manner; it were otherwise a disprivilege rather, for it would expose them to a greater mockery and misery.
Now this double consideration and aspect of these words does afford a just ground for these inquiries yet to be answered, both for the full clearing this place, and also of the point in hand.
The first query is concerning the judgment which we are to give.
The second is concerning the extent of the reality itself, how far this proposition reacheth, that children are holy; whether it be indefinite or universal.
The third is about the reconciling of these two together, and making an harmony between them; and this, for that the judgment that we are called to give, namely, that they are holy, will be found larger in extent than the reality.
1. For the first, namely, our judgments. Three things are to be inquired into about it.
(1.) The terminus or object of our thoughts, or thing that we are to think of them, and attribute unto them; whether we are to think every infant really holy, or outwardly only.
(2.) The subject that this our judgment is to be termined upon, why infant children should be intended rather than those of riper years.
(3.) The manner of it; what kind of judgment or esteem it is, for the act itself; whether in charity only to be exercised, or in assurance.
(1.) For the terminus or object of our thoughts, it is real holiness; that is, which we are to think real and true. Some divines have said, that because the church was to judge any such child holy, though all were not so, that therefore it is but a reputative holiness, and an outward sacramental holiness, that we in our judgments are to give them. But they are mistaken; for though in the event indeed it proves in many of them but a reputative holiness, and only in esteem, yet still so as the terminus of the church's judgment, or that holiness which they are in their judgments to attribute to them is true, real holiness; but it is called reputative only in respect to the event, in that we should attribute true holiness to those who prove not so; yet still the holiness we are to think in them is no other than real to our thoughts; even as it is in our judging those of riper years to be saints, when admitted into churches, it follows not that it is a mere outward holiness that is to be the terminus of our thoughts, or that which we are to content ourselves to find in them, but that they are truly and really holy. Though in the event it proves no other in many than an outward titular holiness, yet the holiness we pitch upon, and aim at, and judge of, and embrace men for, is a holiness to our judgments real. Outward ceremonial holiness, such as was among the Jews, and by them professed only nomine tenus, was a type, and is now vanished.' But the holiness here (whether you take it as it is the terminus of God's thoughts declared, or of our thoughts enjoined us) is still real, namely to our thinking, though we be often mistaken.
(2.) Secondly, For the persons whom we judge thus.
That infant children of believing parents are rather here meant, than those of riper years promiscuously, as the subject of our judgment, is evident.
[1.] Because the only ground of pronouncing them holy is, that they are their children. It is (you see) not put upon any qualifications, or signs, or effects of grace manifested; and though they be their children, we cannot say they are holy, if come to riper years, unless they hold forth a work of grace, as Timothy did, concerning whom the remembrance of his faith was the ground of Paul's persuasion, though the same in his mother and grandmother added a confirmation thereunto, 2 Tim. 1:5. If he had said upon this ground, they are elect, then those of riper years, though uncalled, might have been included; but he says, 'they are holy,' for their present state, which is more.
[2.] And secondly, this is consonant to reason, for there is, nor could be any other rule to judge of infants' holiness than this of their parents' covenant; but for those of riper years there is another rule, so as either they are altogether excluded from this judgment, or else principally meant. Others stand upon their own bottom and testimonial for our approbation of them; but these poor lambs have nothing to shew for it, but that they are their children; neither could there any other rule have been given about them.
[3.] And thirdly, add this moreover to it, that it was as meet there should be some ground, or rule, or warrant for us to judge and esteem them to be holy (so far as to perform all such dues to them, as belong to saints of their age), as well as a rule for those of riper years.
For, first, seeing God hath such a number of elect among them, who make it may be the greatest part of his church (I mean those of them that die, who are as many as those who live), it was meet that they should be so judged, that so God might have the glory of his election among them acknowledged.
Secondly, Seeing he on purpose drew them through their parents' loins, as a respect unto their parents, it was meet that they should have a ground of faith for them, that so they might not lose the comfort of it, nor God the thanks from them.
Thirdly, In respect to the children themselves that are elect, that they that are so might not want their due honour and esteem, but be owned among their brethren for such, neither want a visible means of blessing and testimony of God's favour to them.
(3.) Thirdly, If the question be made, what manner of judgment this ought to be, I answer, [1.] It is not a mere judgment of charity, in that sense that such a judgment is vulgarly taken in, which is,
First, When we cannot absolutely say the contrary, but that such an one is holy; and therefore men usually think themselves bound to call and account such an one to be a saint, though they know nothing out of which to make up such a judgment. But that is not ground enough to judge one a saint, nor to account children holy; for in calling one a saint or holy we give a testimony, we do statuere, and affirm, and that must always have a positive ground, not a mere negative. Yea, of all men and of children, we do know enough to the contrary, namely, that by nature they are unholy, and conceived in sin. There is a prejudice laid in, and therefore something must come between that is positive, to take it off, and to give some evidence persuading us that one is holy and sanctified; our charity otherwise is not to think so. It is true, 'charity believeth all things,' but then first it must have had a ground to believe well of a man; the thing must be credible, it must be an object of faith that may draw forth an assent, and then charity is to help faith, and not to be suspicious. But upon a mere knowing nothing to the contrary, for to begin to believe a thing, is not faith but folly.
Secondly, Men take the judgment of charity for a mere it may be; what may prove so or so in the event, they think in charity they are bound to believe such. But when the apostle here calls us to judge believing parents' children holy, it is a further thing than an it may be, and so than such a kind of judgment of charity. The apostle, you see, says of such children, 'they are holy,' which is more than an it
may be, and of other children he says 'they are unclean;' and yet with such a judgment of charity we are to think 'of all children, that it may be they may be holy. In the 16th verse, speaking of the conversion of the husband, he saith, 'What knowest thou but that thou shalt save thy husband?' But here of the children he says more, he says, 'they are holy;' and not only, what knowest thou but that they may prove holy? A what knowest thou is the ordinary judgment of charity, but now know I, it is meet for me thus to think, is the judgment that we are called to, Phil. 1:7.
[2.] Therefore, secondly, it is a judgment of faith joined with charity, which 'believeth all things,' where a ground is given so to believe and judge, as here the word doth suggest a ground, so to believe of believers' infant children; it is, I say, a judgment of faith, which conforms itself to the word, which judgeth, and giveth, and terminated its thoughts on what the word says, not once daring to think the contrary. I call it a judgment of faith, in difference not only from that other, but from a judgment of sense or experience; for such is the judgment we have of men grown up unto riper years, for which the word gives abstract rules to judge of saints by, and we use spiritual judgment or discerning to apply them; so that in the application unto the persons it is a judgment of experience. Men shew us their faith by their works, and so we out of experience judge them holy, according to such rules as the word gives to judge of men's works by; within the compass of which rules many who are not saints may come, and so pass with us. Thus Paul's persuasion of Timothy's grace was a judgment of experience: 2 Tim. 1:5, 'And I am persuaded' (speaking of his grace) 'dwells in thee also;' 'calling to remembrance thy faith and tears,' ver. 4, 5, it was upon reviving the experience he had had of him. Now this judgment we cannot have of infants, though this be the more satisfactory judgment, I grant, whenas men grown up do shew themselves to be saints, for experience added to faith in our own selves helps and confirms it. Yet the judgment here called for is in this a judgment of faith, that therein we give up our judgments to what God promiseth of them, and declares about them, although we see nothing whereby we
should be induced to believe so of them. And so it is of mere faith of a 'thing not seen,' resting on the word, confining our thoughts, and terminating them to what God hath declared, till we see the contrary, and not a mere judgment of charity; for such we ought to have of others' children, of whom we as yet do see nothing to the contrary, and who may be holy for aught we know; but here God hath put a difference, and pronounced the one holy, and the other unclean.
God's word comes in to terminate and confine our judgments concerning them to holiness; not so of the other.
[3.] And yet, thirdly, when I say of faith, I mean not a faith of assurance; that is, not such as whereby we believe it so certainly and infallibly of every child in general, or any in particular, so as to say, we know the thing cannot be otherwise; but such a faith as makes as suspend all thoughts to the contrary, resting in what is revealed for us to think, and waiting till God reveal the contrary, and so far in the mean time to judge them saints, as that it should bind our consciences to perform all duties to them, as unto saints. For it is even so concerning our own estates, when we want faith of assurance, yet God calls us to have a faith of waiting and expectation, that our estate may be holy, when yet infallibly we cannot affirm it; and accordingly we are to pray, and to give thanks even as persons holy, and to come to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper upon such a faith; and answerably hereunto we are to bring these children unto the sacrament of baptism upon such a faith also.
So that, as it is less than a certainty, or an infallibility, so it is more than an it may be, and than a mere hopefulness. It is a faith of waiting and expecting that it will be so, not only that it may fall out so, yet so as 'it is meet for us to think so;' for we have a rule and ground for our so judging, though not infallibly, for the thing itself in the event.
Thus we have despatched the inquiries about that judgment which is to be taken up by us.
2. Now then, secondly, let us inquire into the extent of the reality of this holiness, and of the proposition here as it respects the truth of holiness wrought in such children. This proposition here, that their children are holy, if so understood, is but an indefinite proposition, not universal, yet coming near to an universal, and so more distinct and express than any other promises given to any sort of men; that is, it is not to be understood that God does certainly and infallibly sanctify all and every one of their children, but that he sanctifies some of them, yea, more of them than of any other sort, but how many we know not. An indefinite proposition is less than an universal, for it intends but some, not all, yet not naming or defining those some in particular, we cannot discern them from the rest; but it confusedly, and in the lump, says it of them all, as when it is said,
'Christ came into the world to save sinners.' It is not an universal proposition, for he died not for all; nor a particular proposition, for he names not, nor defineth whom, but indefinitely speaks it of sinners, in a middle unlimited sense, between both.
I will explain this assertion by these three things.
(1.) You must know that all God's promises given unto men in his revealed will are that indefinite expressions of his decrees and purposes. God having in his decree culled out of mankind certain persons whom his love was pitched upon, hath therefore given an indefinite promise or expression to mankind, that he will save sinners; and again, 'Peace on earth, good will towards men,' Luke.
2:13, 14. And the difference between those his decrees, and these his indefinite promises, is but modalis; for whereas in his secret will, and in the book thereof, he hath named the persons who, and who not, he in his revealed will, and the book thereof, hath concealed the names of the persons, and declared his purpose indefinitely only: 'good will to men;' not to all, but to some of mankind, confusedly and in the lump, not distinctly. So as God's secret and revealed will do still coincidere, they come all to one. There is plain dealing in it; in his indefinite promises he means those, and those only, whom he hath chosen; only he conceals their names, that all may consider it.
Now, further, for a more special direction to find out where God's election runs, look what sort of men it hath pitched upon most, those these indefinite expressions and promises do single out, and point at as the lump wherein election lies; so that some promises are like the star that led the wise men to the very town where Christ was, so they do direct us to the lump or mines of election, they are the directory stars of election; as when it is said, 'God hath chosen the poor of the world.' So also, God having elected out of Seth's posterity, and rejected Cain's, his promises were given to Seth, not to Cain. When the Jews were the golden mine of election, theirs were the promises and adoption, yet indefinitely made to them: Rom. 9:4, 'Who are
Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.' But when the Gentiles came in, and of them all nations, then God broke up the mines of election, and declared that he had elect among all nations the whole world over. And when the time came that the shoals of election was to be made up out of all nations, then was that commission given, 'Go teach all nations,' &c., Mat.
28:19, and not till then. This James gives as the reason of that promise in the prophets about the calling of the Gentiles: Acts 15:16,
'Known unto God are his works from the beginning.' It comes in to this sense (his scope being to expound a promise in the prophets to be meant prophetically of the Gentles in those times), God knowing what he had to do, and whom he had chosen, and knowing that in these times his elect were all the world over, hath accordingly shaped the promise to his decrees, and given the promise of calling the Gentiles unto these times; whereas before, whilst election was only among the Jews, the promises were confined to them. So that God's promises, like that star, do still point out to election, and do remove as election doth. And so here is a promise, you see, stands over the lump or mass of believers' children; yea, a special star on purpose, like a hand in a margin, points at them above all mankind beside, because among them election is most and chiefly to be found.
(2.) Secondly, To this purpose consider that these indefinite promises, or expressions of God's decrees, unto men, and to several
sorts of men, though they be all indefinite, and not distinctly and particularly naming the persons, yet in respect of this their designation, some of them are more express and particular than others. There are several degrees and latitudes of them: some do more confusedly and widely point out these elect, some more nearly and distinctly; some take a greater compass, some a narrower; some speak more remotely, others with a more special and nearer designation. I may express it under that distinction you read in Eph.
2:17 and Isa. 57:19, some are afar off and some are nigh. The promises given the Gentiles were more remote, and far off; for there were such multitudes in all nations, as to make promises to some of that multitude was very remote, it being as if one should speak of gold mines in the West Indies, not defining where; which how wide an expression were it, and how far off should such an one speak! But if he should say there are abundance of great mines in the land of Jewry, even within that little compass of people, how nigh should he speak, and how nigh would every man of them that had fields and possessions think himself of the possession of a mine! This were a near defining of them, though with some indefiniteness, a contracting them within a narrower circle; but if a family were designed, as the house of David, like the naming of a particular field where these treasures were hid, this were yet more near, yet not perfectly and distinctly defining, yet within a little. Now, in such several degrees of indefinites, more or less, hath God been pleased to reveal himself and his decrees according to his good pleasure. See it in the first promise given, the promise of the Messiah; how vastly indefinite was it! The seed of the woman; it took in all mankind, and pointed out one man amongst all. How far off was this from directing how to find who this was! The next promise was more definite, and contracted to a narrower compass, even to 'Abraham's seed,' cutting off all nations and families besides, and yet further contracted to Isaac. Isaac had Jacob and Esau; Esau was cut off, and God limited it to Jacob; but he had twelve sons. Now, how indefinite is the promise again become! Then it was confined to Judah, but Judah had many families; then it was contracted to David's, and to Bethlehem the city of David; and then, yet nearer, to a virgin of the house of David, 'a
virgin shall conceive a son;' and there the star stands even over that field and womb where the Messiah was laid. So in the choice of David to be king; first be makes an indefinite promise of the sceptre to Judah, which naming of the tribe was remote, even one amongst thousands. Then he names the family: 1 Sam. 16:1, 'I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided me a king among his sons.' This was still indefinite, but very near, for it was one among seven; and yet Samuel bids sanctify them all, and that they come to the sacrifice, ver. 5, for he knew not whom it would fall upon. Thus it is in the case in hand in the promises of salvation, in which election is more or less indefinitely propounded. That promise, 'peace on earth, good will towards men,' Luke 2:14, was very remote, and yet was a true expression of God's decree, that he had chosen millions of men, not angels; but then it came to the Jews: 'I am not sent but to the lost sheep of Israel,' says Christ, Mat. 10:6, and 'ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant; unto you first God sent his Son to bless you,' Acts 3:25, 26. This was near; but when it came to such as were converted—'Salvation is come to this house,' Luke
9:9; 'Thou shalt be saved, and thy household,' Acts 16:31; yea, 'your children are holy'—it comes so near, that he indefinitely pronounceth them truly holy upon it. In that heap or lump of believers' children, there is so much wheat of election, and so little chaff comparatively to it, as he ventures to call the heap holy.
(3.) For, thirdly, if you examine it, you shall find that there is no promise of salvation to any sort of mankind so near an universal promise as this is; and therefore it is justly the peculiar privilege to this sort of mankind, believers' children, to be accounted holy, it is so near, so distinct a designation. For, [1.] That to mankind, and to all nations, reaches one of an hundred thousand; and where there is an hundred thousand to one, there is no reason that all should be accounted holy for the sake of those elect ones.
[2.] That the promise to the poor—'God hath chosen the poor of this world,' James 2:5—is nearer, but not so near as to pronounce them holy upon it: for the poor are the greatest part of mankind, and the elect but as an handful among them, it may be one among a thousand; and though there are 'not many rich or noble called,' 1 Cor.
1:26, and so more of the poorer sort than of the rich, yet this was still too large or indefinite to design election forth, for the poor are an hundred times the greater part of mankind. And so though there be fewer elect among the rich, yet it is because indeed there ate fewer of mankind that are rich, wherefore the account may come near unto one in this respect. As many of the rich, comparing number to number, may be elect as of the poor, only the poor being so much the greater number, there are the more of them elect. But none of the designments are near enough to be cognisances of election, nor to know love or hatred by.
But this of being children of believers is so near, this lump contains so much of election in it, as that whereas all others are ten thousand to one, this is but as two to one, yea, it may be the most, it may be all in some families. So that God thought good to make this an outward badge of holiness, for the church to account them holy upon it. It is not here, as among Jesse's sons, one of seven; but it may be (and sometimes falls out) seven to one of them prove godly
(notwithstanding Samuel bade all Jesse's sons sanctify themselves upon it and come to the sacrifice, 1 Sam. 16:5). And God, to whom his decrees, and works, and where his elect lay, were known from the beginning, hath pronounced them to us in an indefinite proposition, to be holy, and bidden us to sanctify them all, and bring them to the sacrament of baptism.
Thus you see how far the reality of the thing itself, it is an indefinite proposition, that their children are holy and elect; and yet not of that vast indefiniteness that other promises are of, but exceeding near to a particular designment, and of all promises the most express.
3. Now, for the third and last head propounded, for the making up an harmony between these two, namely, the reality of such children's holiness in the event; and, secondly, the extent of our judgments about such children's holiness; as also between God's revealed will and his secret; these things may be said,
(1.) That if these two, the extent of the reality itself and our judgments, be singly and alone compared together, they will never be commensurable, as made up even and adequate each to other. At the latter day, when our catalogue of saints, whom we judged such, shall be brought in, it will be found much larger than God's, and that we did set down ciphers for figures; and so our account, numerically taken, will fall short of God's. This must be acknowledged, that an arithmetical harmony can never be made between these two.
(2.) Yet, secondly, we must withal consider, that between these two even now mentioned there comes a middle, put by God between both, namely, that same indefinite revelation of God's mind to us, both about these children's holiness and about what is our duty to think of them. And take that in with the other two, and between all these three compared one with another, there will be found some kind of harmony; for you shall see that this indefinite expression of God's mind differs not on God's part from the reality of what in the event falls out; and also that this his revealed will about them, and his secret will towards them, come all to one, and so that they two agree. And you shall see withal that this our judgment of each children's holiness is but rightly conformable to that indefinite expression. And therefore, seeing they agree in this third, they must in the end meet together; for quæ conveniunt in aliquo tertio, inter se conveniunt.
To demonstrate this of each severally. In God's relation there are two parts distinctly to be considered (as hath been said):
1. A declaration what his own thoughts are of such children indefinitely delivered.
2. A rule thereupon given us, what our thoughts should be of each child: we are to think any of them holy.
1. Now for the first, consider it as a declaration to us of God's mind about them, and there is no dissonancy at all between this his declaration and his secret will.
For, first, God speaks but the truth of what he hath purposed, and that truth is adequate to his decree, his speech is no larger than his meaning; because, according to his secret will, all such children are not holy, therefore he says not that all are holy, but he speaks indefinitely, they are holy; yea, himself hath in his eye these very children only whom he really intends to make holy. He can truly say at the latter day, when he shall have all about him, I meant these, and no other. Only indeed, for the present, he does not distinctly declare his whole mind to us, by telling us particularly who they were.
Yea, and secondly, it became him so to do. It is meet and fit that the great God should thus reveal his mind unto us; for he speaks but like himself, even as the only wise and great God, in his distances to us, who are not (nor was it fit that we should be) of his privy council. It is his distance and his glory to 'conceal a matter,' as Solomon says,
Prov. 25:2; even as it is of a wise, great king, who will reveal so much of his mind as shall serve to set his instruments on work, to bring about the design which he hath in his thoughts, but reserves the rest to himself. Just so does God here, not telling us how many, or who these holy ones are, but points to that lump as holy, so to set us awork to bring them all to the ordinances, that he may bless these unto whom he intends a blessing; so as this indefinite declaration disagreeth not from his secret will, but withal hath a fitness and it decorum in it, becoming the great and wise God.
2. And for the second, that upon this his indefinite declaration, there should be a command given us, to think any one of them holy, with
such a judgment as is before (and shall be afterwards) declared, there is no dissonancy at all in this neither.
For, 1, this ariseth but from a necessary conformity of our judgment to the indefiniteness of God's declaration of his mind; for when God speaks indefinitely, it becomes us to judge indefinitely, and to do that duty which upon such a judgment is due to them from us. If God think it meet thus to speak of that lump, it is meet for us, without prying into his secrets, so to judge of any one in particular, though not of all in general. It is but righteous for God to require it, and a due from us to be given them; so that, as I said of the former part of this revelation, that God spake truth, I and nothing but the truth, though not the whole truth, in that his indefinite declaration of his mind about them, so I say of this second part, that that respects our duty, that God commands in righteousness, when he I requires us to think so of any one of them; for this to be our duty ariseth naturally from the indefiniteness of God's expression about them. Even as it is
God's will, that we on our part should pray for any man that he may be saved, because God hath indefinitely declared his mind, that he will save some of all sorts: as 1 Tim. 2:1, 2, 4, 'I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'
And thus, whilst our thoughts conform themselves to that rule, there is no dissonancy neither, from God's mind, as it respecteth our duty, although we in our thoughts should judge some holy, who are not so in his intention; for the immediate rule unto which our thoughts are to be conformed, is not God's own secret purpose, so as we should think just as God thinks of every one, or else our thoughts would be unrighteous; but God's revelation of his thoughts being only indefinite, does rather call for this at our hands as a duty, and it becomes meet on our part to think any one of those children holy that are presented to us. Now the truth or righteousness of things lies
in a conformity to their immediate rule; as the rule of speech is not immediately the truth of things themselves, but the truth of the apprehension of him that speaks it, that he speaks but as he thinks, and ought to think. So is it here.
So that, for the reconciling of all, consider but three things drawn out of what was last spoken; unto which I shall add a fourth.
First, Where the variation of our judgments herein from God's thoughts does first come in, from whence it is that they prove uneven: that it ariseth merely on our parts, and, as it were, upon a second remove; and, indeed, from the unmeetness that God should tell us all his mind, and the uncapableness of us to know it.
And so, secondly, that the rules whereby we are left to judge of their estates must necessarily be larger than the reality; so as, if God would require us at all to judge any of them holy, and upon that judgment to perform such and such duties to them as to saints, then the rules given us by God therein must of necessity be larger than the reality in the event will prove to be, seeing we could not know men's hearts, nor was it fit that God should design the persons by name.
Thus it is in judging them of riper years. The rules by which God hath commanded us to judge men holy, are larger than what in the event proves true. Foolish virgins are judged wise by us, as well as those who really are so; and yet on our parts it is the will of God that we should judge them holy. And though, at the latter day, there will be found greater odds between our thoughts and God's own thoughts concerning men, yet still our thoughts will be found to have had a true conformity unto what God's mind was, we should think; and why might not as large a rule be given to judge infants by, as to judge those of riper years, that so we might be sure to take in all elect infants, and bring them to God, though we bring many others besides? Even as by the rules whereby we judge saints of riper years, we take in all elect, though many other with them; which is necessary if God will have it pass our judgment, especially seeing that concerning infants no other rule can be given.
And so, thirdly, consider that therefore there is yet a moral harmony between our thoughts herein and God's mind about what is our duty; though not an arithmetical harmony between God's thoughts and ours concerning the children themselves; which is sufficient, seeing
'revealed things only belong to us and our children, and secret things to God alone,' whose 'glory it is to conceal a matter.'
And let me add, fourthly, that there will fall yet a nearer harmony than that simply moral one (which notwithstanding were enough to justify this our judgment); for let our judgment be truly and rightly conformed to God's revelation, and it will not in some respect fall much wide of God's own secret judgment herein, nor from the reality of the thing itself in the event; for though it be true that the application of this revelation of God's by us, will be to many more persons than God intended, yet still if we do but conform our judgment unto God's revelation, there will arise such considerations from the manner of it as will rectify this calculation, and make all even again.
For, first, if our judgment of such infants be truly conformed to God's indefinite revelation as its rule, then, though we come to particulars, and count these infants one by one, we do judge of any one, and so (by induction) of every one of them, because God hath spoken it indefinitely, yet when we take them again into a general consideration in the lump, we withal judge, that not every one of them are holy, but, on the contrary, that many of them are unholy; and thus because God hath not universally spoken it of all, but only indefinitely of some, so as, when our minds form up a logical proposition of these infants, binding them up in one bundle, and laying them on one heap, we then judge as God doth, that not all and every one are holy, but some only; but when we come to an arithmetical enumeration of them, by judging as occasion is of this or that infant individually presented to us, then, indeed, we apply this to them, this infant we think holy, and so that other, and the next no less. And so, indeed, though in our judgment given of them by retail, it rises to a larger sum than God intends, yet by that other judgment
made by the great, there is an abatement given of an indefinite number out of them; in the whole mass of them we thick many unholy. And so, in the total sum, God's account and ours fall near; yea, they jump one with the other, in that this judgment of ours being given of them in the gross and in the bulk, so as how many, or how few are such, we suspend, and leave a blank to set them down in as God's account at the latter day shall come in; so that, indeed, that sum which by parcels comes to exceed, is by the great subtracted from, and in the end all made even; and we come to be mistaken but about this or that person, not in the total sum, or upon the whole. In a word, the variation is but our several ways of account. Cast them up one way by induction, or particular enumeration, and the number exceeds, but count another way, and it falls even.
And secondly, for that mistake in our judgments in having applied it to others more than are holy, there is yet an allowance given in the manner of our judging them, and so an abatement for this from the judgment itself, which also truly ariseth from its very conformity to the indefiniteness of God's revelation. For when it is so conformed, the judgment we pass upon any one infant is not of certain and absolute persuasion or assurance, such as we have about our own estates when sealed by the Spirit, or such as we have of this truth, that every believer shall be saved: but it is an indefinite judgment only of strong inclination, and expectation to see how God will perform his word to this or that infant; such as we have of ourselves in case of our want of assurance. It is more than a simple it may be, or what knowest thou? as 1 Cor. 7:16, for that may be said of any unbeliever's child; but it is with a hopefulness, much weight being put into the balance to sway it that way, though not to down weight, to assurance, yet so far to sway as to become a just ground for us to carry ourselves unto them, as unto actual saints, and so to put a difference between them and other children, as is proper to saints, even to honour them, esteem them, and bring them to the ordinances of baptism as due to saints. For so we are to do to others of ripe years, when yet we have not a persuasion of assurance that they are holy; and so also to ourselves. Now, for us to give them such
a judgment as this, see how conformable and suitable it is to God's revelation, and what an harmony it holds with its indefiniteness, which is the thing in hand.
For, first, because God says not that all are holy, therefore conformably our judgments do not certainly think of any one infant that it is holy. If God had said all, we would have with assurance and a persuasion of certainty said it of any one. But God's speech not stretching itself to an universality, our judgment riseth not to an assurance.
Secondly, Because God hath said it but indefinitely of some, therefore our judgment is also but indefinite.
And yet, thirdly, because this indefiniteness is nearer to an universal, than limited to a few of them, therefore our opinions and expectations are raised to a greater hopefulness for any one that he is holy, than that he is not. It is more than an it may be; for that answers to those large indefinites spoken of sinners in respect of the rest of mankind, which because they are a thousand to one, therefore we have an it may be answerable. But because election here contracts itself so narrowly, as suppose it may take two or three, therefore our hopes are correspondent, and do rise so high as to express a judgment such as inclines rather to their holiness than otherwise; it casts the balance so far that way, as to bind us to deal with them as with saints. Yea, as I said, that God's revelation came a middle way between our thoughts and his own, so this is a middle kind of faith between assurance and a mere it may be; and that sufficient enough to quiet the heart against all fears to the contrary, and to raise it up to a special expectation concerning them to see how God performs his word; there being likewise enough to warrant our applying the ordinance to them as due to saints. So then, this allowance being given to the judgment itself, it comes to pass, that though arithmetically we give it unto more children for number than the reality proves, yet it is a judgment spread so thin, that for the weight of it, it will be ad pondus, no more than a judgment of certain