Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Christ unless for the Cause of Fornication 2. Ab absurdo from the Absurdity that would follow should they separate upon the Account of Religion thereby disowning their Marriage and consequently bastardizing their Children which the Apostle supposing them unwilling to do advises them to continue with their unbelieving Husband or Wife notwithstanding their Differences in Religion Thus this Text Mr. A says is expounded by Melancthon Camerarius and Musculus who also cites St. Jerome and Ambrose for it acknowledging that he had formerly abused it against the Anabaptists So that it seems in this we must consider both the Interpretation and the Autorities produced to confirm it As to the Argument I have these Things to offer 1. That such a Sense is put upon these Words as some of them are never found to have in all the Holy Scripture For tho' it is true that Holiness is sometimes used for Chastity and particularly 1 Thess 3. 3 4 7. in Opposition to Fornication yet Vncleanness is never taken for Illegitimacy or Bastardy in a litteral Sense as it is here rendred by Mr. A As to what is alleged concerning a godly or holy Seed Mal. 2. 15. which Mr. A by the Autority of Calvin and other Learned Interpreters would understand to be Legitimacy let those learned Interpreters be who they will it is very plain that they must take Legitimacy there not in a Litteral Sense but Figurative according to the usual Language of the Prophets who often express Idolatry by Whoredom and Fornication and call the Revolting into it the Marrying a strange God and going a whoring after Idols Ezek. 6. 9. St. Jerome and and the Chaldee Paraphrase by the holy Seed understand the Posterity of Abraham in Opposition to the Gentiles and the former says The Prophets Purpose here was to reprove the Jews for Marrying Wives of the Idolatrous Nations and he grounds this Interpretation on Ezra 9. 2. And if this be good the holy Seed is the People under Covenant with God in Distinction from the Gentiles And therefore I say again that tho' Uncleanness is used in the New Testament for Fornication and Sensuality yet not once for Bastardy nor Holiness for Legitimacy But I think I may say that whenever these Words are used and especially when they are set in Opposition one to another Uncleanness denotes something of the vile Pollutions that were common among the Idolatrous Heathens and Holiness when attributed to Persons always includes something of Distinction and Discrimination from the Heathens either by way of Personal Excellence or of Privilege And therefore 2. It is easie to shew that as these Words are not used for Bastardy and Legitimacy in any other place of the New Testament so that they cannot have any such Signification here Mr. A says That St. Paul here speaks of Matrimonial Chastity in Opposition to Fornication and that his Design was to shew that the Marriage was good notwithstanding their Difference in Religion and that they were therefore under no Obligation to separate on that Account which seems plainly to be one of the Scruples about which the Apostle wrote The Christians indeed had Scruples about their Cohabitation with Infidels But how does it appear that the Scruple was that after their Conversion to Christianity their Marriage was no longer valid or good How does this appear Their Scruple was I confess whether or no they were to separate on Account of their Difference in Religion But the Ground of that Scruple was not any Fear that their Marriage-Contract was invalid and their Cohabitation to be deem'd Fornication but a Tenderness upon Account of the Unbelievers being an Infidel and Idolater lest by so near an Alliance to such an one they should seem either to run into Danger or to partake of the Pollution and Guilt of Idolatry and Unbelief This is agreeable to the Apprehensions which we find that the Primitive Christians had An Instance of which Justin Martyr gives an Account of Of a Woman who upon her Conversion to Christianity finding that she could not reclaim her Husband from the abominable Lewdness of his Heathen Life would be divorced from him and tho' at the Importunity of her Friends she continued with him somewhat longer yet finding he grew worse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. lest she should be Partaker of his Iniquities and Impieties by cohabiting with him and being Partner with his Table and Bed she gave him a Bill of Divorce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and was parted from him This remarkable Instance shews what the Apprehensions of the Primitive Christians as to this Matter were and gives no small Light to the Debate now in hand And that such as this was in Truth the Case upon which St. Paul there treats is farther evident from the Coherence of the Text with what goes before The Questions upon which St. Paul wrote were several First Whether Christians should then Marry which he rather dissuades as that which would more engage them in the Affairs of the World and make them less willing to suffer Persecution This he mentions both in the Beginning and End of the Chapter but then with this Restriction that they should rather marry than be subject to impulses of burning Lusts Ver. 9. Next to the Married he declares that they are bound by the Law of God not to separate if they can avoid it To the Married I command yet not I but the Lord Let not c. Ver. 10 11. Then comes the Case now in hand concerning those who were Married but not both Parties as yet converted to Christianity and among them it was a Question whether their Difference in Religion was a just Cause of Separation Now I say had the Ground of this Scruple been an Opinion or Fear that their Continuance in that married State had been equal to Fornication or Uncleanness St. Paul who knew very well that their Difference in Religion made no such Alteration in the Case would never have usher'd in his Determination with thus speak I not the Lord but thus not I but the Lord as V. 10. It is not credible or morally possible that He who was immediately influenced by the Holy Ghost in the Execution of his Apostolic Office should only give his Conjectural Judgment or meerly Prudential Determination in a Question In which both he and they were afore determined by the express Law and Institution of God and in which he knew himself to be so determined To the Married command I and yet not I but the Lord Let not the Wife depart from her Husband Ver. 10. Especially if the Consequence of their Separation would prove so pernicious as to Bastardize their Children as Mr. A supposes He was the more oblig'd to determine them by the Autority of God's Institution or Law It is I say incredible that he should usher in the Determination of so important a Question only by a Conjectural Order that could not
Parent for as the Children are said to be holy so it is said of the unbelieving Husband or Wife that he or she is sanctified or made holy and therefore as much ought to be baptized Answ But where 's the Force of this Conclusion You seem from hence to infer that there is the same Holiness in both But why so Are there not several Degrees or Kinds of Holiness or Religious Discrimination Are not all Christians holy by their Profession In which Sense St. Paul calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saints or holy Ones by way of Distinction from other Men And are not all true Christians holy by a real Sanctification of God's Spirit And yet these are not the same Again Are not all that minister at the Altar holy in a third Sense by their Office There is then an internal and there is an external Holiness there is a real actual Holiness consisting in Faith and Obedience by the Sanctification of the Spirit and there is a relative Holiness consisting in Separation by Profession or Privilege or Office Here then are different Degrees of Holiness ascrib'd to different Persons according to their several Circumstances The Holiness of the Believer is of one Kind that of the Unbeliever of another that of their Children of a third And so this Objection can be of no Force in that it s founded on this gross Mistake That the Holiness is the same in all Object 2. It is objected That the Holiness or Sanctification of the unbelieving Parent is mentioned by the Apostle as The Cause of the Childrens Holiness Otherwise i. e. were it not that the Unbeliever was thus sanctified your Children were unclean but now are they holy Consequently say you there is a stronger Argument in this Text for baptizing the unbelieving Parent than the Children Even as The Cause is more noble than the Effect Answ I answer If it had been said One Cause of the Childrens Holiness it had sounded better because the Cause looks as tho' it were the chief or only Cause in which Sense the Assertion is not true For the Logicians have justly taught us to distinguish that there is a principal Cause and a less principal Cause The Holiness of the unbelieving Parent is at most but a less principal Cause of the Holiness of the Children or a Cause sine quâ non otherwise were the Children unclean but now are they holy And if this be St. Paul's Meaning yet then in this Sense the Conclusion will fail For whereas it is alledged that on this Account the Words are a stronger Argument for Baptizing the unbelieving Parents than their Children even as the Cause is more noble than the Effect Here lies the Weakness of this Objection which is indeed a downright Fallacy for it is not the less principal but the Principal Cause only that is nobler than the Effect 'T is one of the Maxims of Logic that the less principal Cause Semper est deterior effectu suo is always less noble than the Effect There can then be no Force in this Conclusion unless Men will assert that the Holiness of the unbelieving Parent is the Principal Cause of the Holiness of the Children which is more than St. Paul ever said Object 3. It is objected That a Foederal Holiness cannot be intended here unless it be supposed that the unbelieving Husband or Wife is in the Covenant of Grace Answ But why so I have already shown that their Holiness is not the same the one therefore may be a Foederal Holiness and the other not and so this is a false Deduction Object 4. Another Objection is That if here he meant a Foederal Holiness whereby Infants are set apart from the rest of the World as Members of Christ's Church they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper also which Ordinance is no less a Duty and Privilege of every Member of Christ's Church than Baptism And therefore says Mr. A It is well known that among the Ancients Infants were for a time admitted to this Sacrament as well as to the former But seeing none now to the Latter why to the Former He who makes this Objection has furnish'd me with an Answer to it and says That Self-examination is urged as a Bar in this But if this be all I shall not thank him for the Invention There is another and I am perswaded a better Argument drawn from the different Nature and Design of these Two Sacraments For Baptism is a Sacrament of Initiation the other of Confirmation And tho' God may and does of his abundant Grace admit Infants into his Covenant yet the Renewing of this Covenant is founded on a Supposition of our Frailty who more or less do all transgress the Conditions of our Baptismal Vow and impair our Hope The Lord's Supper therefore was intended the stronger to oblige Men to actual Faith and Repentance after the Violation of their first Vow and to administer Comfort in our Penitential Sorrows in the Commemoration of our Saviour's Passion This Sacrament therefore in the very Nature of it always supposes actual Faith and Repentance which Baptism does not Actual Faith and Repentance are not universally necessary to Baptism as I have proved above but where Sin and Infidelity have gone before For he that has never sinn'd has nothing to repent of And the Innocence of the Person then is a sufficient Qualification for Baptism where there is a rational Hope that he shall afterwards believe and obey the Gospel But the Lord's Supper which was design'd for the Renewing and Confirmation of our Vow supposes both that Vow to have been broken and that Breach to have been repented of There is not therefore the same Reason for admitting Infants to the Lord's Supper as to Baptism because the different Nature and End of each Sacrament shows the One to be proper and the other not For which Cause that Custom is now left off I think then Mr. A 's Objections against my Interpretation of this Text appear to have very little or no Force I desire now that my Reasons against his Interpretation of the Place may be as fairly considered and as impartial a Judgment pass'd upon them Which is most agreeable to the Context and the Force of the Apostle's Argument and Design His Interpretation is this The Scope of the Apostle determines the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Husband or Wife to be no other than Matrimonial Holiness or Chastity in Opposition to Vncleanness or Fornication in which Sense it is taken 1 Thess 4. 3 4 7. and consequently by the Holiness of the Children flowing from it we may understand no other than Legitimacy in which Sense we read of a godly or holy Seed Mal. 2. 15. So that St. Paul here bring◠Two Arguments to prove the Marriage to be good 1. Because the Vnbeliever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified not by but to or unto the Believer by being joyned in holy Matrimony and consequently a
true that there is no mention made in Scripture of such a Practice yet this would not at all prove that there was no such Thing in use and especially when it is found not contrary to the Laws of God For we are no more to expect an express clear and distinct Account of all Apostolical Practices from the New Testament than we are to expect a perfect History of the first Ages of the World from the Six first Chapters of Genesis It was sufficient for the Apostles to acquaint us with all necessary Laws and Commands of God and with the Practices only occasionally as it served either to illustrate or confirm those Laws when called in Question Otherwise they were in many Particulars silent 2. I do not affirm that it was the constant and universal Practice from the Beginning of the Apostles Preaching to baptize Infants For I know very well that God did not think fit to make a compleat Establishment of all Things at once but brought Things to Perfection by degrees As a Reverend Bishop has observed Bishop Pearson in Acta Apost Lec 3. § 15. to us there was a Time when the Christian Church consisted only of Jewish Converts and we know when the Gentiles were first admitted And there was a Time when Circumcision was thought necessary to be observed and it was some Years before this was laid aside So the Apostles according to Christ's Commission being chiefly intent on the Conversion of those Persons that were polluted with Infidelity and Immorality had not as yet taken the State of Infants into their Consideration But when afterwards many Families were converted their Condition came also to be considered And I conjecture that this might first be when Circumcision came to be rejected For it is very likely that when the Jewish Converts who esteemed their Infants to be admitted into Covenant by Circumcision found the Apostles declare that Circumcision was not necessary they then began to start the Case of Infants who by Circumcision had that Priviledge signed to them which by the Abolition of it would seem to have been lost But this I mention only as a Conjecture which you may take or leave as you see fit 3. Tho' we have no Declaration in express Words that Infants were baptized in the Apostles Times yet from one Expression of St. Paul such a Practice may reasonably be concluded He speaks so of the Holiness of Children as seems not to admit of any rational Interpretation and agreeable to the Case and Context but by supposing that those Infants were admitted to Baptism It is 1 Cor. 7. 14. where giving his Judgment concerning those Christians who were married to Unbelievers he perswades their Cohabitation in that Conjugal State if it may be permitted by this Argument For the unbelieveing Husband is sanctified by the Wife i. e. she being a Believer and the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy In which Words the Apostle plainly founds his Determination on this known and received Opinion that the Children of Christian Parents and so also if but one Parent was Christian are holy Else were your Children unclean but now are they holy That Infant Children are here intended is plain in that he speaks of such whose Holiness depended on the Sanctification of the believing Parent which must respect Infants only because the Holiness of adult Perons must be from their own actual Faith Now the Question is what St. Paul means here by Holiness He speaks of the Holiness of such Children one of whose Parents only were Christian and yet of such Holiness of such Children as from thence to prove the Lawfulness of the Cohabitation of such Parents To this End the Holiness of such Children must be evident and indisputable or otherwise the Argument would not have Force Now tho' the Children both whose Parents were Christians may be reckoned an holy Seed or Off-spring by Designation yet it might justly be doubted whether the Children one of whose Parents only were Christian were thus holy when the Lawfulness of their Cohabitation was disputed I ask then how it should come to pass that when the Lawfulness of the Cohabitation of a Christian and an Infidel was disputed yet it should remain a known and indisputable Doctrine that their Children were not unclean but holy For this the Apostle asserts And I am perswaded that the only proper Answer to this Question must be That there was some known Privilege according to the Practice of the Church at least of that Church at that time belonging to such Children by which the Churches Opinion of their Holiness became unquestionable Had not this been so St. Paul's Argument instead of proving what he intended by it might rather have brought the Opinion of their Holiness into Question But that it seems was so certain so well known so unquestionable that he might safely ground his Argument upon it And yet methinks there was the same Reason to dispute one as well as the other had not some customary Privilege made the Difference and what that Privilege was the true Notion of Holiness will discover The best Notion of Holiness in general that I have yet met with is from the Learned and Judicious Mr. Mede Disc 2. who makes it to consist in Religious Separation and Discrimination from other Things which in Opposition thereto are called Common I would ask then by what other Means or Privilege the Infants of Christian Parents can be eminently discriminated from the Children of Infidel Parents so as in the Language of the Church to be called Holy but by being baptized In this Interpretation the Coherence and Purport of the Apostle's Argument is easie and plain which otherwise is unintelligible The Children of Gentile Parents are common and unclean in St. Peter's Sense mentioned above Acts 10. 14 15. i. e. not yet to be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant but the Infants of Believers are holy and may be baptized And thus also the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife in that he who is an Unbeliever has his Child baptized because of the Faith of the Mother as much as tho' both Parents were Christian And this is a good Argument of the Innocence of their Cohabitation For if the Church admits the Child of an unbelieving Husband to Baptism because the Mother is a Believer the Cohabitation of those Parents of whom such a Child is born cannot be thought unlawful upon the Account of their Religion Thus every Thing in the Words is Intelligible and Plain and if this be a true Interpretation here is Proof that the Baptism of Infants was in use in the Apostles Time But you Sir have sent me some Objections and another Interpretation of this Place Both which shall be considered I shall begin with the Objections Object 1. It is objected That there is no other Holiness here attributed to the Children than what is ascrib'd to the unbelieving
determine their Conscience For seeing it was but St. Paul's Order and not God's Command it could not determine the Good or Evil of the Thing Had therefore the Question been what Mr. A supposes it St. Paul must have determined it by God's Autority and not by his own only so that the very Manner of the Expression plainly proves that the Question was only about the Danger of Cohabiting with an Infidel and an Idolater And if this be the Case Mr. A 's Interpretation of Holiness by Legitimacy cannot be good For Divorce in this Case can never bastardize the Children that is only done by the Original Illegitimacy of the Marriage-Contract And so far is St. Paul from asserting what Mr. A affirms that Divorce would be unlawful that he if the Unbeliever will not cohabit leaves the Christian at liberty to separate which he would rather have dissuaded if a Separation had been against the Law of Christ and made their Children Bastards As to the Autority of some Commentators Melancthon Camerarius and Musculus who are alledged to Countenance this Construction What does it signifie when it appears thus plainly to be contrary to the Use of the Phrase and the Coherence of the Place And that it does so will be more plain if we observe 3. That Mr. A 's Interpretation destroys the Force of St. Paul's Argument which our Notion of Holiness cofirms Mr. A says St. Paul proves their Marriage good by Two Arguments First Because the Unbeliever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified to or unto the Believer i. e. joyned in holy Matrimony If he means that because Matrimony is an holy State therefore their Cohabitation is lawful notwithstanding the one Party is not Christian I can go along with him But when he makes St. Paul to argue Secondly Ab absurdo that if their Marriage and Cohabitation be lawful therefore a Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Christ and bastardizes their Children Here I doubt he perverts St. Paul's Sense in many respects for as I have hinted above 1. St. Paul does not say in this Case that a Separation would be contrary to the Law of Christ. So far from it that he does not determine it by God's Law but by his own Opinion V. 12. But to the rest speak I but not the Lord If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not c. 2. He is so far from declaring their Seperation to be a Sin and such a Sin as Bastardizes the Children that he only gives his Advice in case both Parties agree to Cohabit If she be pleased to dwell with him V. 12. and if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him V. 13. But if they disagree about Religion they may part If the Vnbelieving depart let him depart A Brother or Sister is not in Bondage in such Cases V. 15. 3. As I have prov'd that the Question was not about the Validity of Marriage but of the Lawfulness and Expedience of their Cohabitation So Mr. A 's Legitimacy puts such a Consequence on St. Paul's Assertion as does by no means follow for it is only the Invalidity of Marriage that Bastardizes the Children but Divorce alone does not In a Word Mr. A 's Sense of St. Paul's Words makes St. Paul to contradict himself for it makes him to declare such a Seperation contrary to God's Law and injurious to the Children in the 14th Verse which it is plain that in the 15th he consents to and which in the 12th he says he did not determine by the Autority of God's Laws but only by his own Autority But taking the Holiness of Children in our Sense for admitting them to Baptism it makes the Apostle's Argument strong and clear For the Holiness of Children born in such a State is a very good Proof that their Cohabitation was Lawful and Innocent 'T is as much as if St. Paul had said As to the Case of those married to Vnblievers the Practice of the Church in the Admission of the Children of such to Baptism as well as the Children of those Parents who are both Christians show what our Opinion is of their Cohabitation The Vnbeliever is Sanctified in this respect by the Believer else were the Children of such common and unclean like the Children of Infidels but now are they holy or in Malachi's Phrase an holy Seed and admitted into the Covenant of God in Christ by Baptism as well as the Children of those Parents who are both Believers I profess with Sincerity that I cannot find out any other Sense of the Place that will agree with the Apostle's Scope and Design And when it thus appears that after Mens Sedulous Endeavours to evade the Testimony of this Place their Objections are of no Force nor can any other Construction be devised that will well agree with the Scripture-Phrase and be consistent with the Scope and Design of St. Paul's Determination in this Case Methinks it adds very great Autority to my Argument makes the Force of it much more considerable and must be admitted as a good Proof that Infants were baptized in St. Paul's Time But the Thing now in Debate being whether it was the Apostles Practice to baptize Infants I think it will be very proper to show what early Discoveries we have of it in the Writings of the Primitive Fathers For let Men that are Conscious of the Testimony of Antiquity against them never so much decry the Autority of the Fathers and the Primitive Church and tell us that the Mystery of Iniquity began to work in it very early nothing of that should derogate from their just Esteem The Mystery of Iniquity began to work in St. Paul's Time and yet I hope that does not lessen his Autority So neither do all the Heresies and Haeterodox Opinions of the first Ages derogate from the Autority of the Fathers in that they proceeded from Men out of the Communion of the Church and were opposed by the Fathers with that Vigor Constancy and Zeal which makes their Testimony both in Doctrines and Practice highly to be valued For this Reason I say it is remarkable how early we find plain and undeniable Evidence of the Baptism of Infants From the Death of St. John for some Years we have no Christian Writings extant except a few short Epistles In which we can no more expect a particular Account of all Apostolical Practices than as I said before we can hope for a particular History of the first Ages of the World in the first Five Chapters of Genesis But one of the first of the Fathers that wrote in any considerable Bulk was Irenaeus and his Evidence is very express in this Case For he has these Words Omnes enim venit viz. Christus per semet ipsum salvare Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum Infantes Parvulos Pueros Juvenes Seniores Ideo per omnem venit aetatem Infantibus factus Infans sanctificans