remnant at this present time according to the election of grace whereof Paul was one therefore it must be from the visible Church they were broken off But here the Arminians and Pelagians agree with these that are against Infant-baptism as they do in many other opinions Mr. Tombes hath nothing to say in his Examen of Mr. Marshals Sermon to avoid this absurdity but only this pag. 64. The meaning is not saith he of some of the branches in the invisible Church but as when our Saviour Christ using the same similitude saies Joh. 15.2 Every branch in me not bearing fruit he taketh away The meaning is not that any branch in him could be fruitless or taken away but he calleth that a branch in him which was so in appearance so the Apostle speaking of branches broken off means it not of such as were truly so but so in appearance Thus far he Which is a granting of what he denies for to be a branch in appearance is only to be a visible branch and no branch that is meerly in appearance so and not really is one of the invisible Church nor can ever be said to be broken from it but only from his visible state which he hath but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. as a branch in outward priviledges and seeming graces 2. The breaking off c. it was of the Jewish Nation of the collective body though not of every individual and therefore it must needs be from the visible Church for as a Nation they were a Church and the whole Nation was cast away and rejected now as a Nation they were not all members of the invisible Church ver 7 8. with ver 17. 3. It 's a visible breaking off therefore cannot be from the invisible Church ver 3 4 5. 17 18 19. For as Mr. Baxter well observes There can be no visible removing from an invisible term 4. It 's a breaking off the naturall branches so he cals the Jews Now the body of the Jewish Church were not naturall branches in a spiritual sense for they believed not as Abraham did but only called so as they were naturally descended from his loyns and were members of the visible Church and first partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him Thus the Apostle distinguisheth of the body of the Jewish Nation Rom. 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the Israelites in general ver 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption and the glory and the Covenants c. making way by this to shew the sadness of their rejection in ver the 6. to prevent the same Objection the Apostle in this Chapter saith They are not all Israel which are of Israel that is not all spiritual though all natural brances and these priviledges did visibly belong to all As for that distinction of Abrahams being a natural and a spiritual Father it may go for currant until they come to apply it and then it is most vain for all that came from Abraham as a natural Father had a title to all these priviledges forementioned which belonged to the visible Church until they did degenerate and cast themselves out as Ishmael and Esau c. But of this formerly Lastly If they were broken off from the invisible Church it must be either from union with Christ or communion with Christ and his Spirit for this is the true definition of the invisible Church that in it souls have real union and communion with God in Christ through the Spirit but none of the Jews that were broken off had such a union or communion and therefore could not be broken off from it But so far they may be said to be broken off from the invisible Church as by remote consequence as they were excluded from all the means of grace and the Ordinances which are the usual waies and methods of God to bring souls into communion with himself 2. Let us consider what is meant by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches There be many opinions concerning this especially two must be debated some think it Christ as these that follow Origen and the allegorical Fathers Ego aliam sanctam radicem nescio nisi Dominum nostrum Origen But that firstly and primarily by the first fruits and the lump and the root and the branches cannot be meant Christ neither personally nor mystically is most clear if we consider 1. Jesus Christ was not the first fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewish Nation and so cannot answer to the first similitude 2. Jesus Christ cannot be said to be root unto these which were cast away no branches really in him are cut off but so were they for that place of the 15th of John v. 2. which seemeth to speak of some branches which are in Christ and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit it may be better read and according to the Syriack thus Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me he takes away that is that do bring forth some seeming fruit but not as in Christ as root and principle 3. In ver 24. the Jews when they shall be called it 's said They shall be graffed into their own Olive Now Christ is not properly their own Olive but so is Abraham c. 4. The Jews are said as formerly to be natural branches of this root but so they were not of Christ but Christ was a natural branch from that stock Rom. 9.5 Whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Mr. Tombes himself ingenuously confesseth this pag. 67. of his Examen That by the root cannot be meant Christ and gives us the hint of another argument from those expressions v. 24. of some branches wild 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to nature and of ingraffing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to nature into this Olive he concludes the root cannot be Christ for Christ hath no natural or preternatural branches in him all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root And the other expression v. 18. of our not bearing the root but the root us if we boast against the Jews doth evidently demonstrate that the root here is not properly meant of Christ though he be the eternal root of all spiritual happiness set forth gloriously in many other places of Scripture Others by the root mean the Covenant But the best and most genuine sense is to interpret it of Abraham with whom and with his seed as so many branches the Covenant was made and by which both the root and the branches were made holy And this answers fully to both the similitudes For 1. It 's an allusion to the Legal rights about the first fruits which were to be offered up to God and by that all the whole mass all the fruits that came after were accounted holy Thus Abraham was the first fruits of the Jews he believing first and being in
Covenant all the lump the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church and were accounted holy 2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges as their breath Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa 51.1 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen and the pit out of which they were digged he means it of Abraham first as appears by the second verse Look to Abraham your Father and to Sarah that bare you for I called him alone and blessed and increased him c. Ob. But what kind of consequence is this and how doth the Apostle make use of this If the first fruits be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches From what principle doth the Apostle argue Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation and brings in this as a ground to hope for it There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches and argues that if the root be holy when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed they shall be holy likewise The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the Election they are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Fathers sake God having so cast his Election as to run in that vein most eminently And some do render it They are beloved through their Fathers But this is clear 1. That Abraham or as some say Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the root 2. That he argues from the holiness of the root to the holiness of the branches that is from them as Parents to their posterity as Branches 3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture from the Parent to the Posterity for else he had spoken in the dark and had proved notum per ignotius if they could not universally reason from it and if you observe he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration and never stands to prove it further 4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews and their happy state upon re-ingraffing to tell them If the root be holy so are the branches and they are beloved for the Fathers sake if there were not a virtue still in the root to derive holiness to them when they should be received in and ingraffed to their own Olive he laies all the weight on the root being still holy and fresh though the branches be broken off And what can you make of this as to argumentation If the root be holy Ergo the branches and apply it to Persons and Parents but in a moral and imputative consideration Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature from the Parent to his Child and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents and are as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.2 by nature the Children of wrath c. and as David saith Conceived in sin Sol. 1. It 's true we are so and there is no holiness propagated by nature take it for internal habits as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child and in this sense Abraham is not a root he begets no Believer and under this consideration the argument cannot hold Abraham in this sense is only a root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary only Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effectually to convey similar graces But 2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation which flows from Gods Covenant or some special priviledge given to such a stock or kindred or Nation God taking such a family such a stock and separates it to himself for some holy use and so blesseth them And thus it was with Abraham and is most common in the Scriptures and according to the nature of priviledges among men where the son of a Freeman is free and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman and by way of allusion though it doth not hold in all particulars as in justification Christs righteousness is imputed and we accounted holy by it So as to some special priviledges the root the Parent being holy and in the Covenant his Child hath the advantage of it not meritoriously from the Parents faith but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed But 3. This is not by natural generation for then it should be to all Children but by grace and proportion it 's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge and out of special respect to the Parents and to encourage them in their own faith and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world and blessed him yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place The branches are holy because of this holy root not by an actual and inherent holiness but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old and in this sense the argument is strong and enforcing the scope of the Apostle So that though the generation be natural the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant which takes in the branches with the root In no sense besides can this argument be true without you make the root Christ which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities The third and special term to be opened is what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root and how they are ingraffed v. 17 19. For the understanding of this Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position which neither Mr. Tombes who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth nor any other hath or can shake and that is That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the breaking off the Jews as they were broken off so are we ingraffed This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered wert ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius translates it Positus es inter ramos illius arboris Thou art set among the branches of that tree and so referring to the first words of the verse which is implyed that some remained still for but some of the branches were broken off and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges according to that of the Poet Ovid Venerit insitio fac ramum ramus adoptet But the best reference is to the
in vulgar phrase as well who is listed in the School to be taught as one that is teaching or already taught though he hath not learnt a letter Thus in all Schools it 's a usual phrase at the first entrance of a Child he is called a new Scholar or a new Disciple Thus Infants being entred into Christs School and given up to be taught in time and by degrees may be accounted Disciples it was so in the former instance and it 's no strange expression in civil Schools 3. Infants are expresly called Disciples in the New Testament as well as grown and taught men Thus Acts 15.10 Circumcision is called a yoke put on the neck of the Disciples that is on Infants who were the special Subjects of that Ordinance and bore the burthen of it and not properly the Parents and yet the Parents had the deep sense of it reflecting on themselves and their little ones and therefore he cals it a yoke that they nor their Fathers were able to bear especially because it did bind them and their Children to keep the whole Law there is no evasion of this if they say it was meant of the Fathers and of the doctrine of Circumcision which did bind themselves yet they must grant the yoke was on their Children as to the act and that if the doctrine was so burthensome much more the practice which the poor Infants are under and they are called indefinitely Disciples either by themselves or with their Parents And the argument is thus Those were Disciples on whom the yoke of circumcision was laid but on Infants was this yoke laid Ergo Infants are Disciples in the New Testament expression If you will make any distinction it must be in the manner of laying on the yoke viz. on the Parents doctrinally on the Children actually but there can be no restriction of the word Disciples from these on whom that yoke was laid as is exprest in that Chapter Consider 4. Let us come to the subjects to whom the Gospel is to be preached and they taught and baptized it is in Mathew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Nations in Mark it is Preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature Now that Infants should be none of all the Nations and excluded from being of this creation of God who were included as special subjects when the Church was in but so smal a spot of the world is from our narrow apprehensions in the Gospel-times of dispensation of grace And the argument our Divines bring from this place is strong and most considerable The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature all Nations must be discipled but Infants are a part of this creation are included in all Nations therefore they must be made Disciples also Read the Text again Mat. 28. Go teach all Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which must needs referre to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the one be masculine the other the neuter or else must relate to nothing for it hath no Relative besides to answer unto This is very common in Scripture and the same phrases as those well know that understand the Greek in Rev. 2.26 27. and Chap. 19.15 there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Mr. Cobbet of N. E. well observes Consult Acts 15.17 and 26.17 Acts 21.25 Eph. 2.11 Masculines joyned with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies all Nations Now are Infants none of the Nations or none of the National creation which the Gospel may reach God forbid The words hold forth only the general commission given to the Apostles after Christs death which was an enlarging of their bounds who were only formerly circumscribed in Iudea and charged not to go into the way of the Gentiles but now the empale is broken down they must preach the Gospel to every creature teach all Nations and baptize them but it doth not hold forth either the proper subjects of Baptism or the form or manner of baptizing which should not be delivered according to their own rule of institutions in general and indefinite terms as Every Creature all Nations and by transitive words as Preach the Gospel to them teach them If this be the prime institution of baptizing from which place they exclude Infants when Christ useth such universal and comprehensive expressions we shall desire but to deal with them on their ground and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more demonstratively then theirs And this Text shews that Christ gave commission to the Apostles and Ministers to preach and baptize but in what order to do it or what should be required to the qualification of the subject as absolutely necessary is not at all discovered in this Scripture they must look for another Text to exclude Infants besides this else give up their confidence Either this place is the full and exact rule of institution of baptizing or not if they say it is then it would describe the persons and the manner the matter and the form of baptizing and that in the usual phrase with other Scriptures but here is only a general commission to two great acts viz. to preach teach and baptize and we may say in the same place that whoever are outwardly taught or do but hear the Gospel though they walk never so contrary must be baptized for the commission is Teach and baptize nothing of the parties entertainment of it is mentioned in this Mat. 28. nor of the qualification of the subject with any distinguishing character If they say this doth not hold forth all the institutions in every particular as they must grant then we may compare other Scriptures with this to make out the full institution as these where Infants are mentioned with so much gracious consideration as hath been formerly exprest CHAP. XV. Concerning the signification and use of the word Baptism or to be baptized the genuine Etymologie of it in the Old and New Testament the places in the New Testament brought to prove it signifies to plunge the whole body answered THE confidence of these that differ hath been so great that as they have excommunicated Infants from the capacity of such a priviledge which they had so old a title unto so they have forced this only sense from the word to baptize that it must signifie to plunge the whole body under water and deny that to be true Baptism which is not so administred and so make it as essential to the manner as visible profession to the matter For clearing up of this mist I have diligently enguired into the propriety of the word and its use in the Greek Translators of the Old and New Testament which are the best guides in this case and if we look narrowly it will be very hard to find and very seldome that ever the word in Scripture is used for the total immersion of the body or being absolutely under water The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
is the same Psalm only inserted into the body of the Book of the Psalms the former word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sing Psalms And thus the same word in the same verse is exprest by these two words yet hold forth one thing In Esay 12.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the title of Psal 38.1 Mizmor is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here translated a Song and in most of the titles one is used for another without distinction and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schir which is most usually rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Song yet is also rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Psalm Psal 45.1 and 47.1 And by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn Esay 42.10 As for the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tehillim that comprehends fully both Hymns and Songs it is the general title of the Book of Psalms where the variety of them are contained And as some particular Psalms are called in the Greek Hymns or Odes according to the two former words so this word is put at top holding forth the significancy of all the rest and distinguishing the Psalms from all other Books of Scripture as these that know the superscription of that Book understand and it signifies the most universal and full way of praising God especially by singing and it 's exprest by various words as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to praise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to commend or set forth the reputation of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to glorifie or discover the glory of another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bless with many other expressions So in particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 145.1 but most especially is this last word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a word for all Psalms exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Hymn as 2 Chron. 7.6 and 23.13 Psal 39.4 2 Chron. 29.30 Psal 21.13 Psal 64.1 and 99.3 where the one word is translated by the other For their conjunction of each of them together in one title of a Psalm is very usual and often inverted The title of Psal 29.1 is in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mizmor Schir in the Greek Translation it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Psalm of a Song or a Song and a Psalm So 64.1 and 47.1 and 86.1 but in 65.1 there the title is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Song of a Psalm or a Song and Psalm So Psal 82.1 But unto the title of Psal 75. the 70 Greek Interpreters from whom these words are borrowed in the New Testament do adde all the three together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Psalm to Asaph in or with Hymns a Song to the Assyrians By all which we see and might by many more 1. That there is not such a critical distinction to be made between a spiritual Psalm and a Hymn and Song but that they are put indifferently one for another 2. Having opened the words with their use I hope with advantage to those that know the language of the Hebrew with the Septuagint let us now consider them as the matter to be sung and what these Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs are whether Davids Asaphs Hemans and such other which are found in Scripture pen'd by holy men upon special occasions or another of a new composure the former of which I affirm to be an Ordinance of the New Testament 1. These are the titles given solely to Davids Psalms and the other Scripture-Songs which these holy men Divinely inspired breathed forth and left on record And as Mr. Cotton excellently argues What reason can there be why the Apostle should direct us in our singing to the very title of Davids Psalms and other Scripture-Songs if he meant we should not sing these Psalms and Songs Either we must exclude Davids Psalms and the rest from being called Psalms or Hymns or Spiritual Songs or else they must be sung as well as others 2. The names are borrowed from the Greek Translaters of the Old Testament and there is no distinction of them in the New neither can any one tell what they mean but as by their use in the Old Testament Now these names were used there as peculiar characters to express and distinguish the works of David and the rest which were penned to be sung in the Church Let these which are against singing Davids Psalms and of other holy men shew us any one word or syllable in the New Testament where any of these words are taken in any other sense then as they were in the Old and yet we are commanded to sing them in the New on this ground the case would be soone concluded when the question is propounded granting this is a command for singing what shall we sing why Psalmes Hymnes and spirituall Songs how shall we know what these are we must looke in Scripture where these words are used now we finde them nowhere explained so properly as in the Old Testament where they are the usuall titles of Davids Psalmes and the Songs of other Holy men and no other use of them exprest in the New why may not we judge then these are the Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs we are there commanded for to sing But 3. Come to the New Testament and there when ever Christ or his Apostles speak of Psalmes they refer us to Scripture Psalmes Luke 20.42 Christ saith As it is written in the Booke of the Psalmes that is the 110. Psalme The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand in Luke 24.44 when Christ would make an exact division of the Old Testament he divides them into the Law of Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes distinguishing the Psalmes from all other Scripture as a peculiar booke by it selfe And as when we are commanded to read the Law and the Prophets we cannot thinke them to be any other then the writings of Moses and Samuel and the rest of the Prophets in the Old Testament So when we are commanded to sing Psalmes not the Law or the Prophets how can we imagine it unlawfull to sing that part of Scripture which is properly called the Psalmes as the writings of David Asaph c So the Apostle Acts 1.20 speaking of Judas his fall and ruine saith as it was written of him in the Booke of the Psalmes Let his habitation be made desolate c. Psal 69.26 and in the 16. verse saith Peter the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake this concerning Judas v. 20. for it is written in the Booke of the Psalmes Acts 2. Acts 25. and 29. in stead of saying as in the Psalmes he saith David speaketh of Christ thus and thus in Psal 16. Acts 13.33 speaking of Christ againe he saith As it is written in the second Psalm and v. 35. As it is written in another Psalm which is the 16. By all which is cleare
was newly administred Now new institutions as before require grown persons and actual visible believers to be the first subject of them they could not baptize their Children first for then the Parents would be neglected and the bringing in of a new Ordinance requires renewing of special acts in these which partake first of it as if an old Lease which is made in the name of a man and his Children be at such a season to be renewed upon some certain terms the man himself must come and acknowledge his owning these terms and then it is to him and his as before So now in the New Testament God renews the Covenant of Abraham adds a new initiating seal to it it was before entail'd in such a line which is cut off it 's now of the same nature only every one must come in his own person first as Abraham and enter his own name and then the promise is to him and his seed Thus it was in the former place where when the Jews came to be baptized they were exhorted first to repent and be baptized themselves then the promise is to you and your Children So that this we affirm 1. That no man must be baptized or receive an Ordinance by any fleshly prerogative but where there is an entail of a promise there is a spiritual ground of administration 2. That no person grown up to years of understanding hath right to a sealing Ordinance but upon his own personal qualifications 3. That persons may have present capacities and visible right to Ordinances and yet afterwards cut off themselves and be found incapable as Ishmael and here the Pharisees and Sadduces 4. That the exception of some persons upon the account of their degeneration and personal defects doth not hinder but the old priviledges of the promise may be conveyed to these which do really embrace the Gospel and to their seed all these are undeniable in themselves And this Text reacheth no further then to the exclusion of these which had demonstrated themselves to be only the Children of the flesh and not of the promise also which is a demonstration only à posteriori from their after actings and teacheth us that these that boast in outward priviledges without looking after personal qualifications and holy frames within may be as well judged carnal as Heathens and prophane persons CHAP. VII That special place in 1 Cor. 7.14 opened and argued Else were your Children unclean but now they are holy THIS place of Scripture though it seems to stand by it self yet hath full correspondence and harmony with all other places in the N. T. concerning this truth As the former did hold forth the promise the Covenant to Believers and their Children in distinction from all the world so doth this leave a character of special qualifications sutable to a subject of such an Ordinance and when the promise and the qualification shall meet together there is enough for to capacitate to any Ordinance The Apostle is in this verse answering a scruple which might arise in the hearts of the Corinthians concerning abiding together of married persons the one being a Convert and a Believer the other whether man or woman an Unbeliever as it was a common case in the Apostles times the Husband might be converted the Wife not and the Wife converted and not the Husband the Word working on the one not on the other this begat a doubt in the believing Party whether he or she might with a good conscience live together in that state The Apostle answers it ver 12 13. positively That they ought not to separate or leave each other notwithstanding that the one was an Unbeliever And he gives in this ver 14. a strong and peculiar argument which he makes instar omnium for the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in the believing Wife c. Else were your Children unclean but now they are holy The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel-priviledge annexed to the state and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural moral or positive rule but à majori from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel For 1. The unbelieving Husband is sanctified in or to or by the Wife 2. The Children in such a state are holy as if they had been both believers That the Apostle holds out a Gospel-priviledge not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state is clear 1. Because the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side and there fixeth it the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in the Wife as believing and so contrarily the unbelieving Wife in the Husband So Beza affirms that in two special Copies he finds the words thus read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither can it hold sense with the former words but as thus read And if it had not been the Apostles proper meaning to shew the special priviledge the believing party hath notwithstanding the unbeliever he would have only said the Husband is sanctified to the Wife and the Wife to the Husband that would have been the plainest and least ambiguous expression of such a sentence and the Apostle would never have made an argument of four terms when three could only satisfie for all know that an argument with four terms is most deceitful and false 2. The Apostle doth use higher terms and phrases in this argument then is ever used in Scripture to express a meer lawfull or common priviledge as to be sanctified in the Wife and the Children to be holy expressions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil or natural or legal conjunction being singled out in Scripture to hold forth the best state of persons and things in relation to God and his use And the Apostle useth two terms both negative and affirmative they are not unclean but holy the opening of the use of which two words will clear the point under consideration The word here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean in the Old Testament is commonly used for those legal pollutions and uncleannesses which made men to be separated from the Congregation and excommunicated from the priviledge of Ordinances until they were washed and sanctified Thus in Levit. 5.2 3 4. Chap. 7.19 14.7 8. Isa 52.1 Hag. 2.13 with many other places where unclean is opposed to a present sutable capacity for Church-priviledges But that famous place in Acts 10.14 shews it most clear what the proper use of this word is he joyns it there with what is common or prophane When the vision came to him of eating all sorts of Creatures he saith Not so Lord for I have not eaten any thing that is common or unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This vision was about his going to Cornelius to open the Gospel to him and bring him into the Church who was a Gentile and so common and unclean not fit for Gospel-priviledges as the Jews were thought to be Now in a civil
sense things that are common are not unclean but in a religious sense what is common is adjudged unclean Now Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church he cals him common and unclean as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise but God answered What God hath clensed or sanctified call not thou common Cornelius was not a Bastard nor unlawfully begotten but he was not accounted a fit member he was without the Church therefore the Apostle cals him common and unclean Just in the same phrase with the Apostle here when he saith that Children are not unclean he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward priviledges of the Church But that is not all but he positively saith they are holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not unclean And this latter word is most used to express the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum that which is appropriated to a Divine use which is the proper notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament and never taken otherwise For the proof of which I have compared above three hundred places in the Old Testament according to the Septuagint and all the N. T. places where the word is used And this all do grant even Mr. Tombes himself that the word generally is taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God and he only brings these places wherein he thinks there is another use of it 1 Tim. 4.5 Every Creature of God is good and not to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence saith he is meant only the lawful use of the Creature in opposition to what is to be refused It is a wonder but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth how any man of common understanding finding the Word holy sanctified alwaies used in a religious sense should fly to this place to make an exception The Apostle saith first Every Creature which God hath made is good in it self and none to be refused that is all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution as formerly But then he goes higher speaking of a religious use of outward things They are sanctified by the Word and Prayer they are all good and lawful in their use to every man but they are only sanctified by these holy means the Word and Prayer And he might have as well said that the Word and Prayer are not holy means but only lawful to be used as that the sanctification which is by the Word and Prayer is to make the Creatures only lawful to be used If a wicked man eat his meat without seeking a blessing on it or giving thanks will any one say that he hath not a lawful use of the Creature but any man may say it 's not sanctified to him The Apostle in these 2. ver goes on gradatim by degrees from a lawful use to a holy use of the Creatures All is good and may be used but they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer thus you see the nature of this priviledged place But the main place Mr. Tombes alledgeth for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful is that 1 Thes 4.3 4 7. This is the will of God your sanctification that you abstain from fornication and let every one possess his vessel in sanctification and honour for God hath not called us to uncleanness but holiness Here uncleanness is taken saith he for fornication and holiness for chastity To which I answer with Mr. Marshal That chastity among the Heathens is never called sanctification but among Believers it is being a part of the new Creation and one branch and part of their sanctification wrought by the Spirit of God And though Mr. Tombes saith this is but a shift yet he shall see it demonstrative if he observe the phrases in the Text and the nature of sanctification in the 1 2. ver the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk and to please God according to the rules of Iesus Christ and he urgeth it in ver the 3. with this It 's the will of God even your sanctification that is that you should walk in all holiness sutable to the blessed rules of the Gospel and as one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin And he instanceth specially in fornication which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles So that if you view the place you shall find That 1. He speaks of sanctification in general in its full latitude ver 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God This is the will of God even your sanctification that is it is Gods command and Gods delight to see you sanctified then he brings in abstinence from fornication the sin of the times as one part of that holiness God requires For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification or in mortification which for distinctions sake we may call the two parts of sanctification Now chastity in it self as in the Heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification some other Epithite becomes it better Would Mr. Tombes call all the abstinencies and actings of the Heathens by the name of sanctifications and speak like a Christian and a Divine Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity sanctified Socrates holy Aristides And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among Heathens in such a high Gospel-dialect as sanctification is appropriated alwaies in Scripture to God Angels Saints and their highest graces and workings and to things raised above common use dedicated to God and his service but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common if that sense should be admitted contrary to the Scripture use of the Word But that is a weak case that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain But to go on a little further The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints or holy ones at Rome at Corinth Galatia Ephesus c. which when appropriated to persons alwaies signifies a visible Saint So here when he cals Children of believing Parents holy he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as visible Saints until they do profess the contrary and I know no reason can be given why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles when he writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints should not be as well understood written only to the legitimate and those that are not bastards at Rome Corinth