Chapter IV

Chapter IV

* For the unbelieving husband is sanc

A larger explication of 1 COE. VII. 14,

tified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean ; but now are they

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. vii. to prove this to be the true mean

ing of it, and intention of the Holy Ghost in it ; and that it accords with

that other, Rom. xi., 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 ;

CHAP. IV.] OF ELECTION. 441

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 con science 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 command ment ; 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 ix. 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 it 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

442 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

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

nnbelieving 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. xix. 3), and so therein he should but command what Christ had said in that point already, that divorces at plea sure 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 encourage ment, 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, factam 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

CHAP. IV. ] OF ELECTION. 443

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 sub jection 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, 1 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 unbe liever

^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 pecu

liarly 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 ev, which we translate by, implies this ; for it is all one with

444 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

p ropier ; 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. Yea, [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.J it is further noted out as emphatically in the Greek article sv rfj ywcuxi, and ev r& avdgi. 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

ev rfj yvvaixi, the word Knsry is expressly added, that is, in the believing wife ; and to sv r<Z avfy), the word KKSTU is added, in the believing husband. The like is said of their children, that they have a differing privilege (which the word sirs!, 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 ev rfi yvvauxi, 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 Jinis 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. viii. The

bells and bridles of horses are said to be holiness to the Lord, being used holily by believers under the gospel, Zech. xiii. 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. xiii. 13. And thus here the husband is sanctified in the wife. Now this is to be under stood in a double sense or respect

[l.J 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. iv. 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 reso

lution is, that this marriage stands not only good, but sanctfied 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

CHAP. IV.] OF ELECTION. 445

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 opens, 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 ix. 2. ; and it is likewise the end ordained by God of the marriages of believers, which, I take it, you have clearly expressed, Mai. ii. 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 com munion 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 lati tude of the phrase, he doth not only say, that he is sanctified to her, but in

her, so in the original sv rfi yvvaixt, 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.

i 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 cog nisance 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

446 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

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 holt/. 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 them

selves, 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 expres sions 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 unbe

lievers. 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 choos-

eth 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, xadaga, pure or clean, answers to axa&xgra, 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 ayia and axaQagra 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 ix. 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

CHAP. IV.J OF ELECTION. 447

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. lii. 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 un believers 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. xiii. 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 sacra mental ordinances, as uncircumcised persons were not, Isa. lii. 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 cere monies being abolished, concerned them not. And moral holiness, in oppo

sition 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 vuv ds 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 he 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

448 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

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 x. 3, that after a solemn fast they did cove nant to put away all the wives, and the children begotten of them. The

like you have also Nehem. ix.; and so the place in Malachi ii., 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 pro faned 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.

x. 1; so 1 Cor. ix. 9, 13, and chap. x. 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, vi., 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 un

believing 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 deter mination of their law, yea, aflirms that the gospel afforded a privilege to a

CHAP. IV.] OF ELECTION. 449

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 differ ence 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 determina

tion 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.

x. 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, com

ing 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 em

bracing 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

VOL. IX. F

450 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

calling, civil 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

* God hath

Lord^s freemen. And among other reasons he suggesteth this,

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 hasve 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 common

wealth 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 reli

* 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

gious, because they were to be a holy people,

strange wives as unclean, and in keeping their seed unmixed. And there

fore, Mai. ii. 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 ail

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 s-ame ground were these Corinthians and other

Gentile Christians, for the preservation of the peace of Gentile states aoad

commonwealths, to keep them, and not to put them away.

Then, secondly, the apostle withal takes into con-sideration the privilege of believers 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, whieh privileges continue to them under the gospel, as founded not only upon a correspondency to the Jews Covenant, but even to the same pri mitive 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 iunocency

it was by nature, or by a natural covenant, but now by a free covenant of

grace, drawing his elect through their loin s, yet with a like covenant there

unto. God resolved to keep to the law given at first ; only now, out of

grace, that as holy Adam should have a holy -seed, o holy men should

propagate a seed to God ; and this, I take it, is the reason why Malachi oargeth the sin of it upon the Jews (ver. 11), from the example of the first mar

riage. Thus, immediately after the fall, God calls out Beth to propagate a

holy seed, Gen. v. 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

CHAP. IV.] OF ELECTION. 451

in the behalf of the elect, and for the believing parents sake, that it tases

place against the curse and defilement, which else would come upon the mar

riage 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, notwitstanding the father s curse ; and such is the law of privi

leges 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 neces

sity 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 recom

pense 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. vi., 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 pri

vilege 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 deter

mines, 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,

< else were

JOT/, else, as it stands in the first sentence concerning children,

your children unclean, and how it knits this sentence with the former, or

what reference it hath to those words, the unbelieving husband is sancti

fied in the wife ; and, 2, of that other, vurfe, but now, in that latter

clause about them, but now they are holy ; and what connection or

aspect these two particles have on with or towards each other, or the i

going words. . , , For the first : there are two scopes or meanings which that particle else

452 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

will bear, whereof each may rationally stand and serve either of them for

the point in hand.

First, Some do take the word sxei, 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

* your children were unclean, but now they are holy ; as if the apostle meant to argue, ab

the husband is sanctified by the wife ; for else, says he,

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 privi

lege 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 mar

riage must needs be sanctified to them, and undenled 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, not

withstanding 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 sirs}, or else, is used and taken in this epistle, chap, v., 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 commu nion 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 acknow

ledged 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 com mon 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, xi., 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 be 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. xv. 14, If there be no resurrection, then is your

CHAP. IV.] OF ELECTION. 453

faith in vain ; he argues from what he knew they would not call in ques tion, 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 bap tism (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 commu nion 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 explica tion 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, Ehe your children were 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

454 OF ELECTION. [BoOK V.

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 un

believers 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 diffe rence and separation comparatively to others children. And this is the reason he useth two words and expressions, one negative, not unclean, and

positive, they are holy ; whereas otherwise one of these expressions would have been sufficient.

And 2, ens), 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 a 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 net 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 aga is added to evil, 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 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

CHAP. V.] OF ELECTION. 455

unbeliever s sake would be unclean ; than whichnothing could be said more

to enhance this favour, and the privilege of a believer in this respect. His

scope being to put the easting 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

prevailed. And so else indeed comes in here, just as it would in this follow

ing 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 y 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 ease might say, the regenerate man is so fax accepted in Christ, that not

withstanding the influence of the unregenerate part, his actions are sancti

fied 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..

drawn out of that foregoing exposition of 1 Cor. VIL 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 con

siderations, 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 un

is_ but an instru

believing parent, is attributed to them ; and that the one

mental 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 holi

ness of the children be acknowledged to be but as true and as good a holi

ness for personal holiness (and sueh as the word usually accounteth unto

persons), as that being sanctified which is spoken of the unbe ieying 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

^ For when the

then it will necessarily follow that it is the holiness we seek.

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,

456 OP ELECTION. [BOOK Y.

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, attri buted 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 un

believers, 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 *o 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 com munion 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 be

gotten, are yet unclean in a further respect, which the gospel counts an un-

cleanness, 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 cere monial 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 differ ence 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.

CHAP. V.] OF ELECTION. 457

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 Jewsand 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. xi. 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 con

futing 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 mar

riage, 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 cere

monial 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. xxiii. 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 tl

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

apostle.

2. Remove that appearance which seems to make lor it.

8. Yield how far the sense may be taken in.

458 OF ELECTION. [BOOK V.

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 com

fort 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 sanc

tified in and by them, which of unbelievers (though their marriage be law

ful) 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 im

proves 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 axadaera, unclean, he opposeth not xa^aga, 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, axa0ap<r/a, Eph. v. 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 cere monial law ciyia and axatfagra, 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 cere monial 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 be applied to express this difference between children merely as law

fully 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 ordi nances 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

CHAP. V.J OF ELECTION. 459

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 chil

dren 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

_ Not as the sole

intends to shew that they were lawful children. But how ?

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 ot 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 prarequisitum in subjecto. Even as to be lawfully begotten is a neces

sary supposition in law before a child can inherit, and in a prince s son is

the fundamental requisite of his dignity, so by the ordinance of Crod also ;

460 OF ELECTION. [BOOK Y.

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 ii. 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 unbe

lievers 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 pri

vilege 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 con

verted, 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 differ ence 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 unbe

lieving husband, even as 1 Tim. iv. 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 con ceive these children unclean in their use and service, and obedience per formed to them ? How an unbelieving husband might be unsanctified to them in marriage communion, and they defiled thereby, might easily be con

ceived, 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

CHAP. VI.] OF ELECTION. 461

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 there fore 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.

But first, to say they are holy; that is, by the stay of their parents together they may be such, otherwise they are unclean, ihat 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 opposi

tion, 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 mar

riage 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.

↑ Back to top