laid down as the ground of my argument thence First That the Jews did once belong to God as his visible Church This he grants to be true externally and that visible imports for what is visible is externall But why he addes typically I know not if he mean it that they were not so really but a shadow of visible Churches under the Gospel it s apparantly false if they were so really though therein they were a type weakens not the edge of my principle at all Second principle Though some elect among them Ver. â— 6. to 17. which were but a small remnant obtained mercy yet the body in generall was cut off and cast out of the honour and relation to be the people and kingdom of God This he grants Third principle That the Believing Gentiles are received into the place of the Jews cut of and so taken into the fellowship of believing Jews to partake of their priviledges and to be Gods house and kingdom with them This pincheth and here he addes qualifications 1. That as all the fleshly seed of Abraham were with reference to Canaan externally the visible kingdom of God so now all the spirituall seed of Abraham with reference to the new Jerusalem are spiritually the people of God and through profession of faith the visible kingdom of God 1 Pet. 2.4 5. But here first to let passe his expression of visible kingdom with reference to Canaan and spiritually the people of God with reference to the new Jerusalem which are new coined expressions without warrant out of the Word as also his misapplication of 1 Pet. 2.5 to the visible kingdom which expressely note the spirituall house to passe by these I say the verses quoted by me will make my principle good for ver 17. And if some of the branches be broken off and you being a wilde Olive tree were graffed in among them and with them partakest of the root and fatnes of the Olive tree is spoken to the body of the Gentiles that visibly profest christianity many of which were but chaffe with the wheat how can he then say it constrains no more but that the spirituall seed are by profession the visible kingdom Sith the chaffe had the same externall Church-state with the wheat that is the formall with the spirituall Christian It s true that the spirituall seed by profession of faith become the visible kingdom of God but is it not as true that among the Gentile yea and Jewish Professours there were many formalists yet they also were members of the visible kingdom with the spirituall seed His second qualification is That as the Jews had right to their priviledges by birth so now all the seed of Abraham Jews and Gentiles through faith have right to their priviledges not otherwaies But this is a most false assertion for priviledges of the seed of Abraham are either externall as to be of Gods visible kingdom and to have the outward seals or internall as remission of sins and the internall only they have by faith the externall they have by profession of faith as he himself confesseth in regard of visible Church-state here and elsewhere touching Baptisme now our dispute is about externall priviledges wherein his assertion is apparently and by his own principles false Fourth principle That the body of the Jews cast off shall be graffed in again and enjoy their pristine honour to be the people of God and the visible kingdom of Christ though not solely yet as fully nay more gloriously then before Hos 1.10 11. Hos 2.23 Rom. 11.25.26 This he grants but denies the conclusions from it The conclusions are 1. That when the Jews were in their first estate their children were comprehended in the Covenant with them This first he grants pag. 10. but withsome addition as they were a fleshly seed they were in Covenant with their parents but this is a corrupt addition for this makes the Covenant a fleshly Covenant only which is derogatory to it and the Saints under the old Testament 2. Conclus The Jews that obtained mercy kept their station and so must needs retain their priviledges for them and theirs ver 17. That is that they and their children should continue the visible kingdom of God Else a Jew should be a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ for they that before were within should after be without and denuded of that dignity which before they had 3. Conclus The believing Gentile succeeds the rejected Jews and becomes one visible kingdom with the Jews that kept their station and so must injoy their priviledge to belong to God with their seed 4. Conclus The Jews called recovering their pristine condition with advantage the promise will be extended to them and to their seed as Isa 59.20 And so must it be with the seed of Christian Gentiles else we make a partition wall under the Gospel Now to the three last conclusions M. Har. answers together by fained senses which he knows I intend not only to delude where he cannot answer for why should he inquire whether I mean by station place and promise Canaan and circumcision and other ceremonies pag. 11. that were peculiar parts of the Jewish administration Whereas I have exprest their station to be with their seed the visible Church or kingdom of Christ to whom pertaineth the adoption and to whom were committed the oracles of God Rom. 3.2 and to whom were vouchsafed all other priviledges of visible Church members And such among them as had the faith thâ—t they profest injoyed also the spirituall priviledges of remission of sins and sanctification c. but not these only And that the Jews in part standing still in part breaking of and the Gentiles graffing in is meant of a visible Church-state to injoy or loose visible priviledges in becoming or ceasing to be of Gods visible Church wherein the invisible is comprehended but not alone meant may be evidently demonstrated 1. The broken off onely fell from being members of a visible Church and lost visible priviledges only Rom. 11. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew for members of the invisible Church cannot fall away they are built upon the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail nor can their peculiar priviledges be lost Such gifts of God are like the seed 1 Pet. 1.23 Immortall 2. For the Jews that stood imbracing the profession of Christ many were but carnall Christians as appears in that the Churches received so much disturbance from them and so kept only outward Church-priviledges not inward graces 3. The Gentiles admitted were good and bad together gathered by the draw-net of the Gospel who all were of Christs visible kingdom and admitted to outward Church-priviledges from which the former were fallen but not all of them to invisible graces by all which it appears how falsely M. Harrison affirms that here is nothing spoken or meant of outward birth priviledges and that all is of such priviledges
Testament was meerly fleshly c. But I answer there 's no such Covenant extent no distinct Covenant with the fleshly seed distinct from the spirituall His misinterpretation of Gen. 17. from ver 7. to 15. for that purpose I have convinced of vanity in clearing my first argument There was a Covenant indeed that had divers priviledges given to Abraham and continued to a visible Church of his seed wherein were parties of different condition Some carnall some spirituall Now to the carnall though spirituall things were represented and offered yet they only partook of carnall and externall priviledges but the elect partook of the spirituall priviledges also And so is it now in the visible Churches of Christians where are wheat and chaffe carnall and spirituall Christians M. H. premiseth 2. That the Covenant made with Abraham and renewed with Christ in the Gospel was never made with any fleshly seed it s wholly spirituall the signe and sanction spirituall c. appertaining only to a spirituall seed c. But this is a manifest untruth in part and in part misapplied for is Baptisme any more a spirituall seal then circumcision Have all that are Baptised put on Christ really or many in profession only Are all Baptised yea in an unquestionable way spirituall ones What was Simon Magus Are there not yet in visible Churches such a distinction of Christians and Baptisme as there was of Jews and circumcision Rom. 2.38 29 Do not Simon Magus and daily experience shew it True it is that those that are not by profession only but really by faith Children of Abraham they are spirituall c. but this is but the invisible Church under the visible now as it was in Judaisme M. H. himself sets Baptisme to men because they professe not because they beleeve as the title of his book shews and how oft is profession without faith M. H. premiseth 3. That the Gospel-Covenant is more glorious c. Then M. H. answers If he mean by priviledges fleshly c. which if is but to make way for an evasion He knows I mean not a fleshly but an externall priviledge to be of the visible kingdom of Christ of which he that is not is without and in an ordinary way without God and without hope in the world Ephes 2.12 Of which to denude our children and to make their condition as hopeles as Turks is a great discomfort and a straitning the grace of the Covenant for tell me when a Jewish childe did die was there no more hope of him then of a Canaanites childe See 1 Sam. 12.23 and whence that hope but from the Covenant with the seed Gen. 17.7 Deut. 30.6 And is that a carnall priviledge that gives hope of salvation So then M. H. by denying Infants to be within Covenant defalkes or curtails the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant and then his answer is demonstrated to be false CHAP. X. Wherein my last Argument for Infant-Baptisme from the judgement of charity is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY sixth argument was thus Where we have evidence for judgement of charity that there is the grace of the Covenant there we may set to the seal of the Covenant That we have for Infants Ergo. The minor I make good by three positions 1. Children are capable of the grace of the Covenant 2. Some are actually partakers of it 3. Because the children of believers are externally under the Covenant of grace Here M. Harrison answers not punctually but in four particulars 1. The judgement of charity must be guided by a rule and he knows none but Mat. 7.20 By their fruits you shall know them It seems he hath forgotten 1 Cor. 13.5 6.7 where he might have read many more rules of charity It believeth all things hopeth all things that is wherein there is any fair ground and that I have shewed for the grace of the Covenant to be in Infants But saith M. Harrison The spirit bloweth where it listeth Joh. 3.8 Where it is not limited to children of believers more then unbelievers Answ The spirit bloweth where it listeth doth it therefore blow no more in the ministery of the Gospel then in Philosophicall lectures No more in the Church then out of it You will not say it for the spirit that is free hath limited it self by promise to blow ordinarily more in one exercise then another in one society then another and so to one seed then another Deut. 30.6 Isa 59.21 M. H. saith Simon Magus did appear a believer but that hinders not my assertion viz. that profession is only a ground for judgement of charity not certainty as appeared in Simon Magus who by his profession in charity was judged to have what he had not For his second demanding proof That the children brought to Christ were of believing parents Why else were they brought to Christ would they offer their children to Christ that did not themselves believe in him That which M. H. saith thirdly Touching Christs omnisciency is besides the point Sith we in admitting to ordinances proceed not upon judgement of certainty but charity M. Harrison addes Fourthly that though children had grace actually which saith he why children of believers should have more then of unbelievers I know not nor I am perswaded doth M. Geree why then there 's no more hope of a Christians childe dying in innocency then of a Turks which I have shewed both false and dismall to parents yet because they cannot act it by action or profession it s no ground of administration of Baptisme wherein 1. He differs from M. Tombes 2. From the truth for what is the reall ground of claim to seals but being within Covenant or having the grace to be sealed Which if it come to my knowledge any way by fruits or testimony of Gods Word Who can forbid water to those that have received the holy Ghost as well as we Act. 10.47 As the Apostle argues from evidence of the grace of the Covenant there And thus I have cleared the sixth argument from M. Harrison who in this last answer doth so needlesly inculcate the hopelesnesse of Christian Infants for grace and glory are connex that if he have no more comfortable divinity I shall not envy but wonder at and pity the multiplicity of his followers M. Tombes takes notice of this sixth argument pag. 101. and 102. And there denies both the major and the minor And denyes Act. 10.47 to be a proof of the major which I have already made good to M. Harrison The Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant and the grace of it Baptisme is not to seal profession of faith but the righteousnes of faith properly and therefore I conceive the true ground why Baptisme was administred on profession of faith because that profession was an evidence of the righteousnesse of faith and being in the Covenant which it is not in judgement of certainty but charity as Simon Magus his case cleareth If then by any other evidence we
priviledge none for their seed But by his leave this will follow unlesse he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles and their seed too and if he grant that whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places And unlesse he grant this priviledge to Christian Gentiles there will follow a partition wall thus far to make distinct conditions of persons under the Gospel contrary to Ephes 2.14 where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equall From me M. Tombes proceeds to M. Marshall pag 7. Where he saith the chief difference is whether the ingraffing be into the invisible Church by election and faith as M. Tombes affirmed To which M. Marshall replies that if it be meant of the invisible Church only and all that are ingraffed in the Apostles sense whether Jews and Gentiles are only elect ones Then will he promise never to plead this Scripture more for Infants This motion M. Tombes accepts but in the repetition that the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith he leaves out the word onely wherein the whole emphasis of M. Marshalls offer lyes He tells us again that the same people were ingraffed into the visible Church but the ingraffing is more then that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and Qrdinances But what is this but what M. Marshall and my self have again and again asserted that it s meant of making all to be of the visible Church that professe and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truly believe and this is enough to carry the cause that at least the elect Gentiles by ingraffing obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off and so they and their children are in Covenant as the broken off were And therefore I should not be so liberall in my grant as M. Marshall to M. Tombes in this wherein he is an adversary M. Tombes brings many arguments to prove that the ingraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith which I shall examine and discover if he put in the word onely they are too light if not they reach not the question the thing in question only first I will premise an observation That it is an usuall thing in Scripture when it speaks of visible Churches though it is apparant they did consist of good and bad to give attributes that are to be understood only of the elect and invisible part either because of the same profession of goodnes that all make or synechdochically naming the better part for the whole thus in the inscriptions of S. Pauls Epistles All the members of visible Churches are tearmed Saints and peculiarly 1 Thes 1.5 Knowing beloved your election of God So the seven Churches of Asia are tearmed golden candlesticks May we hence truly gather that there were none in any of the Gentile Churches but Saints and that all the Angels and members of the seven Churches of Asia were golden He of Sardis and all that had a name to live and were dead Revel 3.7 Surely no but those things are attributed to visible Churches because of the elect among them yet were not the elect only spoken to or of even so many of the expressions from which M. Tombes argues are peculiar to the elect not that no non-elect persons had among them a standing in the visible Church and not in the invisible but the expressions are used synechdochically the more noble part put for the whole but now to the particulars That the ingraffing is into the invisible Church only 1. Because it is by Gods sole power Rom. 11.23 I answer the ground is weak for no man can give a man power so far to believe as to professe especially one blinded and hardened of God but God alone and was not the visible Church-state of the Jews when all other Nations were without an act of Gods power only nor could it be by man So then also their re-ingraffing though many come to be members of a visible Church only 2. He argues because the ingraffing is called reconciliation opposite to casting away ver 15. which is called breaking off ver 17. But this also is too weak for the casting away and breaking being but a losse of what they had that is visible priviledges the reconciliation might be and in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church estate no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been 3. He argues from ver 20. By unbelief they were broken but thou standest by faith I answer The elect by faith and profession was both in the invisible and visible Church the formall by appearance of faith stood in mens esteem and as members of the visible Church And to this purpose Calvine part of whose speech you afterward applaud Pracipuè notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi in quo multi esse poterant frustra inflat fidem potius profitentes quà m habentes 4. He argues from ver 17. That ingraffing is meant whereby the wilde O live is copartner of the root and fatnes of the Olive tree and then much stir is kept what the root is But I answer If the Olive give fatnes I know no other Olive but he that is the vine into whom all Christian Gentiles were ingraffed by profession and the elect of them by faith really also and hence this expression ver 17. in regard of what in profession and shew belonged to all and in reality was verified of the better part the elect 5. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding but that is weak for then ingraffing may be by illumination to profession which may be without election Heb. 6.4 5 6. 6. He argues because reingraffing brings salvation but that is to some of the ingraffed not all unlesse he thinks at the Jews restauration there shall be none of them formalists and hypocrites 7. He argnes because the ingraffing is by vertue of Gods election his love his gifts of calling ver 30 31 32. But I answer the election love and gifts being such here as belong to bodies or nations it is not such as M. Tombes means which is election unto salvation by faith Sith that belongs not to whole bodies or Nations or not to all of them and so is attributed in regard of the better part 8. Lastly because the ingraffing is the fruit of Gods mercy and breaking off by shutting up in unbelief But neither is this last cogent sith there is generall mercy to make members of a visible Church as well as speciall to make members of the invisible and their unbelief was not only want of saving faith but historicall faith to professe which later if they had had they had not been broken off and therefore they that have it are ingraffed into their rooms to injoy that visible standing which for want of it they
lost Thus M. Tombes his army of arguments are routed and it is to be observed that in all his conclusions he leaves out the word onely which is the binge of the controversy for we not only doe not deny but also positively affirm that in some the ingraffing was by faith and election into the invisible as well as by calling and profession of faith into the visible So M. Marshall pag. 137. and 138. of his defence But where M. Marshall interpreâ—s it only of bare admission into visible Church-membership excluding the ingraffing into the invisible I professe I cannot finde and therefore believe M. Tombes hath in that imputation wronged him For the places that M. Tombes makes parallell 1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes 3.6 Gal. 3.14 26 28 29. They are so farre in my apprehension from confirming his opinion that they manifestly confirm my observation touching the expressions of Scripture when they speak of the visible Church in which there are good and bad they in regard of the profession of all and the reality in the elect speak as though all were elect but it is by a synechdoche For let M. Tombes tell me doth he think all and every particular person Baptized in Corinth or Galatia were really ingraffed into the body of Christ or had put him on c. Yet this is spoken of all in regard this was true in all in profession and appearance and there were some elect among them of whom it was true really even so we do and are to interpret many phrases urged by him in Rom. 11. in this present businesse The only objection of weight saith M. Tombes is that then some branches of the invisible Church are broken off and so election made revocable and apostacy from grace maintained This is an objection of weight indeed but not the only objection for there is another also as forcible hinted also by me pag. 18. where I affirm that the Apostle speaks not of particular persons but of the body of the Jews and the body of the Gentiles that were Christians collectively received into the room of the Jews broken off and the body of the Gentiles that received Christ by profession were not all elect but good and bad drawn together by the draw-net of the Gospel But how doth he answer the weighty objection 1. He boldly affirms That the breaking off was of the branches that were truly such and of the ingraffing that was truly such into the invisible Church But may we not change the verse and say Pictoribus atque sophistis Quidlibet audendi c. But he brings an allay That by the branches are not meant singular persons but the people why then the people that were ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off so yet the invisible Church was prevailed against in his sense therefore I know not what help this limitation will doe him That which is said of people in a body must be true in some particulars of that body so if the body of the people truly ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off this must be true in some singular persons Besides how apparantly crosse is M. Tombes his assertion to the Apostle Rom. 11.1 2. Hath God cast away his people God forbid God hath not cast away his people that he foreknew So you see the people that make the â—nvisible Church are not broken off What M. Tombes addes afterward touching the body of a people which were once the elect people of God and ingrassed into the invisible Church because the generality were such that it 's no errour to say they are broken off from election I say first it is not good sense to say the body of a people is ingrafted into the invisible Church whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body as chaffe under wheat and to say a Church is broken off from that election which is speciall and to grace which was once elect and from being the invisible Church that was once the invisible Church is sure a most grand errour For speciall election to grace and glory which makes any people of the invisible Church is a foundation of God that remains sure against which the gates of hell cannot prevail The thing which occasioneth M. Tombes his errour is want of consideration of a distinction which M. Tombes very well knowes but thorow eagernes to maintain his tenet as I conceive doth not consider Election is either generall or speciall so is reprobation generall election and reprobation is of bodies or societies and this is only in reference to visible Churches in which is contained the invisible thus God is often said to chuse the Nation of the Iews Deut 4.3 7. 10.15 That is the body of his people to be his visible Church in which indeed was contained the invisible Now opposite to this generall election is generall reprobation whereby a people are cut off or cast out of the honour of being Gods visible kingdom and so without hope to be of the invisible so then the breaking off of the Iews was only from this generall election and their reprobation generall to cease to be Gods visible people But now there is a speciall election of singular persons to be the invisible Church and this is never attributed to a visible body unlesse synechdochically and oft his we deny the broken off to be partakers of or to fall from The Apostle Rom. 11. divides the Church of the Iews into two bodies one the people that God foreknew the other opposite the one were of the invisible the other of the visible Church orly Those opposite were broken off the whole body of them but it is only from what they had to be visible members not from what they had not to wit to be of the invisible and therefore here his argute simile from the river Euphrates will not serve his turne for we enquire not here what the Israelites had been nor have we to doe with the species of Israel but with these numericall branches broken off The numericall branches graffed in mentioned by him for proof pag. 77. from ver 23 24. were not they graffed in his opinion into the invisible Church and then if in the same sense the numericall branches be broken off they be broken off from the invisible Church and then they fell from grace The Apostle shews not there that the branches were broken off from what the species of the people had had in former times but from what they had at the time of breaking off and that was only a visible standing in the Church by vertue of Gods generall election which then they lost and by this distinction of generall and particular election used by Calvin himself lib. 3. cap. 21. instit and Perkins on Revel 2.9 you may see the sense of your authours they speak as you say of the body of Jews and Gentiles and so the election and reprobation which they speak of is generall to be or not to be a
visible Church and so alterable not that speciall election and reprobation which is more immoveable then heaven and earth of which the question is between you and us And these words of mine will doe you as little good that holines Rom 11.16 is meant of potentiall holines in regard of Gods election for thereby I only understand Gods purpose revealed to take the seed of the Iews to be his visible Churâ—â— once again and no other sense can it have sith the present 〈◊〉 were so many of them unholy Thus have I answered M. Tombes his large dissertation which I again seriously commend unto him being not a little grieved to see so much ability and industry cast away to darken manifest truth in my apprehension CHAP. VII Wherein my fourth Argument for Infant Baptisme frons Cor. 7.14 is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions MY fourth Argument ran thus Saints under the Gospel have right to Baptisme Children of believers are Saints Ergo c. Here M. H. puts in again his distinction of visible and invisible Saints But this I put by as before by informing him that known is as much as visible and therefore what a man may challenge because he is visibly so qualified he may challenge if his qualification be known any other way And therefore is a Saint judged to have right to Baptisme as a visible Saint because by something discerneable to sense he is known to be a Saint and then if by evidence from the Word any be known to be Saints they may be Baptized but that Infants are by 1 Cor. 7.14 So unlesse M. Harrisons answer to the minor be more solid then his denyall of the major he must miscarry First M. H. affirms that the holinesse ascribed to children cannot be meant of faeder all holinesse as the Nation of the Jews were holy Gods visible Church having right to Church-priviledges as I expound it Let us hear his reasons 1. Because the wise is said to be sanctified to or by the husband as well as the children the word in the Originall is the same Now he thinks I will not call the unbelieving wife a Saint I answer The unbelieving wife is not said to be sanctified absolutely but in or to the believing husband that is as he confesseth as meats which are not made holy in themselves but to the believer and therefore cannot be called holy But the children are said not to be sanctified to another but to be holy that is in themselves as our Divine answers Bellarmine lib. 1. de Bapt. cap 4. With whom how often doe you symbolize But you say the word in the Originall is the same but that is plainly false for the one is a verb with a proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may and doâ—h signifie an act on the unbeliever in reference to another the other is an Adjective a concrete word that imports a quality inhaerent in the party 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So we want both truth and skill in this assertion that the Originall word is the same And so is the assertion following false also that we must admit many such as the Infidel wife in our Nationall Church for we neither must nor doe admit any but those that professe faith in Christ no more then M. Harrison His second reason is because the unbelieving husband can by generation conveigh no more to his children then to his unbelieving wise But this is just to beg the question which we affirm he barely denies we give reason The Covenant is with fathers and seed not with the husband and his wife and by vertue of that Covenant the father that begetteth conveigheth more to his childe then to his wife But saith he let us seriously consider doth a believer beget a childe as a believer or as a man if as a man then that is born of the flesh is flesh c. I answer Did a Jew beget a childe as a Jew or as a man not as a Iew for then only Iews could beget children Yet did a Iew I hope by vertue of Gods Covenant conveigh to his childe Church-priviledges his childe was a Iew by birth Gal. 2.15 So may a childe by vertue of Gods Covenant be reputed a Christian by birth in regard of Church-priviledges But more closely A man corrupt doth beget children as a man or as a corrupt man not as a corrupt man for then he could not have begotten children had he stood innocent but if as a man whence is his childe corrupt The answer must be by vertue of the Covenant of works under which Adam stood in Paradise as the head of mankinde for breach of which every naturall branch of Adam is now born corrupt Rom. 5.12 So though a believer beget a childe as a man nay more as one of the corrupt issue of Adam and so considered the issue is corrupt yet as the believer is under another Covenant that imparts priviledges to him and his seed his seed may injoy that priviledge which the Covenant contains and so may be reputed holy belonging to the people of God which an Infidels childe is not Next M. H. gives us ajâ—june interpretation of his own without proof to wit That the children are holy to the believing party as all other dispensations of Gods providence are Whereas here the children are not said to be holy to the parent but absolutely that is in themselves And according to Rom. 8. which he quoteth for proof or illustration things unclean even the sins of the called according to Gods purpose are turned to good to humble them and fit them for more grace and therefore this is too low a sense and reacheth not the Apostles meaning Thus hath he deserted M. Tombes who backt his opinion with some probability that he did errare cum ratione and without any answer to any of our reasons he hath rejected our exposition and proposed one of his own which he hath left to shift for it self without proof Doth this become the considence M. Harrison hath of his ability to defend his tenet against any opponent Touching this place M. Tombes in his Apology addes not much but only one crank he hath with which if every man were as well pleased as himself they would without doubt explode as he saith the exposition of 1 Cor. 7.14 of faederall holines but let us try the validity of it If the reason saith he p. 96. of the lawfulnes of two persons living together in disparity of religion be taken from the vertue of faith in the one party not from the relation of husband and wife as M. Marshalls exposition makes it The medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulnes of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband will as well prove the lawfulnes of the living of a believing fornicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator I answer if all the reason of the lawfulnes of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband were from the faith of the believer there were