were blamed who were therein guilty do you expect Persons to be particularly reproved that in many Cases cannot be found â—â—l 18. But to come to his Examples that of Sheshan 1 Chr. 2.35 will not prove it lawful I rather think it is taken notice of so particularly as a Fault in him Your Author may as well alledge the Example of Lot's Daughters Gen. 19.32 33 c. to prove the lawfulness of their Facts and to justify the like in others Pray where are they blamed Yet I hope your Author thinks them Blame-worthy As for Solomon who married Pharoah's Daughter is it not strange your Author should so paraphrase upon it to prove it lawful when the holy Ghost sets a Brand upon him for it 1 Kings 11.1 2. But King Solomon viz. notwithstanding all his Glory and the Kindness the God of Heaven shewed him yet he offended he sinned against God he loved many strange Women together with the Daughter of Pharaoh Women of the Moabites Ammonites Edomites Zidonians and Hittites and to put all out of doubt it is said ver 2. that these were of the Nations concerning which the Lord said unto the Children of Israel You shalt not go in unto them neither shall they come in unto you Here Marriages with the Edomites Egyptians Moabites and Ammonites are forbidden The same Answer will serve to the Example of David and Moses and the Author is strangely mistaken to think that God justified Moses in that Act Numb 12.4 No God speaks to Aaron and Miriam and reproves them because they vilified Moses as to his Office ver 2. Hath the Lord indeed saith they spoken only by Moses Hath he not spoken also by us Herein God takes his part but his Marriage is past by God doth not vindicate that although much may be said in his Excuse But since we are mentioning Examples I will put your Author in mind of one Example viz. Ahab King of Israel 1 King 16.31 who took to Wife Jezebel the Daughter of the King of the Zidonians which altho a thing too common how laudable it was may be easily perceived for saith the Text He did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him For he walked in the Sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat and as if that had been a light thing he took to Wife Jezebel Daughter of Ethbaal King of the Zidonians That was an Aggravation of his Fault this was a Sin attended with many other evils But Again your Author saith Fol. â—â— the Jews were allowed to marry with Edomites Egyptians c. and this he proves from what is said Deut. 23.7 8. Thou shalt not abhor them the Children begotten of them shall enter into the Congregation in the third Generation It is strange what Conceit will do What is this to the Jews marrying with those Nations Is here any Allowance Is there a Word spoken of such Marriages If any such thing was intended surely it was disapproved in that the Children were to be excluded the Congregation until the third Generation Is this the Allowance your Author boasts of Concerning Moab and Ammon of them it is said ver 6. Thou shalt not seek their Peace or their Prosperity for ever These would be unkind as well as unlawful Marriages Besides what is spoken of the Children of Moab and Ammon is also said of a Bastard ver 2. so that in Truth to lye with an Harlot comes within your Author's Allowance from those Words D. But doth not the Author give a sufficient Answer to the Texts alleadged out of the New Testament and if so it is not much to us although you could make what he hath already said to be invalid C. Touching those I will begin with his Answer to that place 2 Cor. 6.14 for what he saith before doth not merit our Consideration as to the matter in hand wherein He saith 〈◊〉 25. he cannot but wonder that Text should be urged I commend him to endeavour to put his Adversary out of conceit that he may voluntarily lay down the Cudgels for otherwise he can hardly force him indeed I cannot but wonder that he should so blow it off If all should be granted which he saith touching Church-communion yet sure it would not exclude Marriage Be not unequally yoaked saith the Text that is in no Case whereof Marriage is one Yea it is more then probable that the Apostle design'd it for be not unequally yoaked It is a Prohibition and intends something which is a Man 's own Act wherein I would know of your Author when it is said in the Church of Christ that a Member yoaks himself with an Unbeliever only as to Church-Communion An evil Person winked at will not come within that Prohibition Fol 〈…〉 Your Author saith it is plain it respects the Church and their assembling c. And tells us it as plain that where Persons of different Religions have married they have had notwithstanding the same Agreement as to the Marriage-Bed and other worldly Affairs as others do enjoy and sometimes more to their Content and Profit and therefore it cannot be this Relation which is reprehended in this Chapter Is not this the Man that before hath told us Fol. â—â— that Acts must not be judged by their accidental Events and yet now therefore saith he Marriage is not intended because such unequal Marriages are attended with the same Content and Profit as others out of his own Mouth this Reasoning may he judged unsound But farther I must tell him one Swallow doth not make a Summer if sometime God blessed the Off-spring of Judah by his Daughter Tamar I hope your Author will not therefore plead for such Acts howsoever his mutual Content may be reckoned rara Avis Fol. â—â— c. He confesseth in the same matter he made himself Work for Repentance and freely confesseth it to be his Folly and notwithstanding the mutual Enjoyments and equal Contentment he boasts of he is forced to acknowledge that he saw by Experience Fol. â—â— the Inconveniency of such a Marriage which now he would vindicate one would think his own Words may give a Solution to his Arguments in this Case But again notwithstanding your Author's therefore I conceive Marriage is intended and an unequal Marriage with Unbelievers strictly forbidden I think I need not tell you Marriage is properly called Conjugium and a Wife Conjuga from the yoaking together not Church-Communion and that such Marriages were then reckoned unequal Yoaks is apparent and the Interrogations used by the Apostle in the following Words are to strengthen the Prohibition that we may perceive the Illegality thereof attended with great inconveniences there being no true Fellowship no pleasant Communion no Concord but Prayers hindred frequent Contentions and the Instruction of Children in the fear of God impeded This the Apostles urge As also is found when Paul argueth against Fornication which your Author detests 1 Cor. 6.15 Shall I
Author's satisfaction Again Give me leave to tell your Author there may be a Law in this Case which may not be given by way of Precept yet of as great force for it is by way of Prohibition be not unequally yoaked and by way of Limitation as in the Text alledged she is at liberty to marry only in the Lord wherein it it easy to be found by whom this was made the Time when and where the Record is to be found and yet all this consisting with the Law of Prudence for our God was prudent in all and every part of his Laws D. I pray give me leave to proceed a little farther for if I mistake not the best is at at last and there are such Answers given to the pretended Punishments inflicted by God for such Marriages as every Man must confess are very weighty For 1. Our Author sheweth it was for Idolatry and not for marrying with Persons of other Religions that they were punished 2. The Punishments were so far from being inflicted upon the account of Marriage that Israel were permitted to marry with Egypt Ammon Moab c. 3. The Command was only a prudential Command 4. It was a prevailing evil at that time which induced the Scribes so much to oppose it And Lastly That none of the Instances given decide the Controversy which is about Persons differing about Institutions in matters of Religion for in all the Instances alledged the difference is about the moral part of Religion what can you say to these things C. â—â—l 52. I say with you The best is at last for your Author gives and that for divers Reasons by himself urged this Advice viz. As you tender your own Peace your Reputation the Honour of God and Religion make your choice in the Church What more can be said if our Peace our Reputation the Honour of God and our Religion is concerned We may then conclude it is unlawful to do that which destroys all these and whatsoever your Author pretends if this was not yet it deserved to be severely punished But I will proceed to give some reply to those things which you think are very weighty and First Whereas your Author pretends it was only for Idolatry that the People were punished this is a nice Distinction as if a Drunkard should be punished for Spewing and not for Drinking so excessively to occasion it That they were punished for Idolatry is true but must the occasion thereof be excused surely no your Author in this Case forgets we are to avoid all Appearances of evil but more those Marriages were the Cause of Evil Idolatry was the Effect thereof which also God had foretold would ensue besides why are those Marriages mentioned and complained of when the Punishments are recited if the Holy Ghost did not intend that we should consider those Punishments were for that Evil But to come to a particular reply your Author saith in Answer to that Punishment mentioned Numb 25.4 1. That they were not married but committed Whoredome with the Daughters of the Land 2. That the crying Sin which displeased God was their Idolatry Slay ye every one his Man that was joyned unto Baal-Peor Fol. â—â— not saith your Author those that were married but those who were joyned unto Baal-Peor A prudent Answer for First he tells us they were not married and then saith God was not displeased with those who were married when it seems if it be as he saith there were none married But again if his displeasure was for their joyning with Baal-peor and limited to that I must then say it was not for committing Whoredom with the Daughters of Moab and so justify that as well as your Author doth their Marriages But in truth God was displeased with both those things They first joyned themselves with the Daughters of Moab in Marriage saith Josephus who we may believe had as true account of that affair as your Author and then were enticed to sacrifice to Baal-Peor these occasioned the displeasure of God This is apparent by many Demonstrations but particularly ver 6. Behold one of the Children of Israel brought into the Congregation a Midianitish Woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the Congregation of Israel by your Author's leave this demonstrates as much a Marriage as was used in those days and I may argue that they would not have been so publick if they had not been married 2. The Woman was a Daughter of the Prince of Moab and we may well imagine would not have consented to have left her People to come into the Congregation of Israel and into the Man's Tent if he had not taken her to Wife It is very probable some might not be married and commit Whoredom but that others yea many of them might be married which was also displeasing to God and might be reckoned in respect of the Illegality Fornication that Man that took his Father's Wife to be his Wife as it is thought committed therein Fornication viz. Whoredom 1 Cor. 5.1 This was the Fault which Phineas avengeth by the Death of them both ver 8. there was nothing of Peor then mentioned yet in truth it was for both viz. their Marriages and their Idolatry this is plain ver 18. the matter of Peor which was their Idolatry and the matter of Cozbi the Name of the Daughter of the Prince of Midian which was their joyning in Affinity with the Daughters of Moab The second Instance of Punishment in this Case is from Judg 3. whereto in Answer your Author tells his Antagonist that he forgot the last Clause of the sixt verse and served their Gods but surely if he had not forgotten the first Part of the verse which saith they took their Daughters to be their Wives and gave their Daughters to their Sons he would not have denied the Punishment to be inflicted for strange Marriages which surely was Here was amongst other two great Sins committed by Israel viz. marrying strange Wives and serving strange Gods for both these the Anger of the Lord waxed hot and he sold them into the hands of the King of Mesopotamia Nothing can be more clear it is the same we find concerning Ahab 1 King 16.31 It is true he served Baal but the God of Heaven first reckons his Marriage with Jezebel as the Aggravation of his Sin Fol 〈…〉 The next Instance of Punishment which your Author would avoid is touching Solomon 1 King 11.11 wherein he tells us Solomon was not threatned for his Marriages much less punished Nay he saith he was not in the least reproved for it or warned about it as his Evil. He was married saith your Author many Years to his strange Wives yet not reproved for that But when he became guilty of Idolatry then God reveals his Displeasure and not before Here is indeed a fair Tale but that the Vanity there of may appear I must tell you Solomon did sin in those Marriages and then every
Author is very prudent in fighting with his own Shadow from which no man can expect harm I never heard or can believe that a Rational Man would produce that Text Gen. 2.18 against such Marriages as the Dialogue intendeth but the less force the Argument hath it is the easier answered But before I leave this I must take notice of a strange mistake in the Author who tells us that it was not the design of God Almighty in creating the Woman that she should be meet help to Man in the best things which he endeavours to prove because it fell out otherwise the Woman being first in the Transgression and a Temptation to her husband Gen. 3.6 12. I must herein tell you and the Author also that it was the design of God Almighty that the Woman should be a meet help in the best things for certainly God design'd his own Honour in the creation of Male and Female which is most advanced when they abound in good things What afterwards fell out is no good Argument against the design Events prove many times contrary to Designs and Expectations And it must be thought the Author had little foresight when he thus argued for if he had but considered what himself intended and afterwards wrote Fol 〈…〉 he would have perceived the weakness of his own Weapon For he tells you good and lawful Acts and then much more designs may be attended with contrary accidents He that kindles a Fire with a design to warm himself it may perhaps saith the Author burn the House c. Thus you see what inconsistences accrue through want of preconsideration D. I will not undertake a reply to what you have said I must leave that to the Author but let us proceed to his Answer to the Argument from Gen. 6.2 Foâ— â—â—â— C. I must again say it is best answering Arguments of a Man 's own framing and therefore 1. As to the Exposition of Gen. 4.26 then began Men to call upon the Name of the Lord I tell you whatsoever the meaning of that Text is it is nothing to the purpose in hand for that Argument and Answer may shake hands 2. As to the Sons of God mentioned chap. 6. It matters not who they were it is nothing to our purpose But I suppose the Author to be strangely mistaken in his conceit that they were the Inhabitants of Eden begotten by Adam before his Fall whom he pretends remained uncorrupt till that Day at which time they defiled themselves by accompaning with fallen Women D. But he sheweth you many Reasons for that Opinion C. I will consider them in order 1. For the Continuation and Preservation of the Garden of Eden it will be hard for your Author to prove that it continued so many hundred Years as passed between the Creation and the Flood but if so before the Author concludes that it was preserved for an Habitation for Men not corrupted by the fall of Adam he ought to have proved that there was such a Generation which when he doth I will consider more of it His conclusion in the second place from the Text 〈◊〉 â—7 that their Acquaintance was by accident and not from their Cradles is nothing to the purpose I apprehend no such necessary Deduction from the Text but if so must they be such Inhabitants in Eden because their Acquaintance was new Is it not common for persons not acquainted from the Cradle to Marry in our days yet not to come from Eden but of the same Country And for the manner of Speech it imports no such thing as your Author surmiseth but this is to be considered thence-from that Men preferred Beauty before Vertue their choice in Marriage was according to their own wills without respect to the Honour of God or any bounds and limits by him set 3. Whereas your Author argues that as their Acquaintance so the Effects of their Union was strange and unexpected to the then World I cannot but think it strange and it was unexpected too that your Author should so mistake 1. himself doth not he tell us the Eyes of the People were fixed upon these Marriages to see what would be the Effect thereof as looking for something not common and then how could the Effects be unexpected to those who were looking for them 2. He mistakes the Text I am sure that doth not say the Effect of their Union was strange and why he should conjecture it I know not the contrary is apparent from the Scripture which saith Gen. 6.4 There were Giants in the Earth in those days and also after that when the Sons of God came in unto the Daughters of Men and they bare Children unto them the same became mighty Men which were of old Men of Renown the Words and also demonstrate there was nothing new in that Case and therefore not strange to the then World Besides this is evident from what is said such Men were of old Men of Renown it is but your Author's Fancy which induceth him to think not only above but contrary to what is written Yet 4. Fol 〈…〉 He comes to tell us of those prodigious Births which were in those days as another Reason to perswade us to think that there were such incorrupted Inhabitants in Eden But would not a Man think that to be verified in your Author as he saith of his Brethren Fol 〈…〉 that they may be imagined not only besides the Truth but their Wits also For 1. There were no prodigious Births he that consults the Text Gen. 6.4 will perceive there was nothing but what was usual in those days as appears in the beginning of the verse and also after that c. and also in the former days for their off-spring was such as was of old 2. Foâ— â—â—â— Doth not your Author argue that those Marriages were not sin because God blessed them with a great blessing in giving them an Honourable Off-spring What an Honourable Off-spring yet a prodigious viz. a monstrous Birth this is your Author But what if there had been such prodigious Births doth that demonstrate any such Inhabitants in Eden as your Author conceits Surely no but if it should your Author is besides the Cushion and caught in his own Snare For the only reason must be in that one Party was Righteous and the other Wicked for they were all of Mankind and so as to that no difference in reference to the Act of Generation His 5. Reason from verse 12. is as prodigious as his pretended Births 〈◊〉 â—7 and may we not think it strange that any Man in his right wits should think it most rational arguing that some Men remained Pure and Incorrupted until those days because that Text saith All Flesh had corrupted his ways Doth not the Apostle say Rom. 3.23 All have sinned may we suppose you argue from thence that some were Pure untill those days But since I have entred upon this conceit I will enquire a little
farther into the matter For to me it is apparent there were no such Pure Inhabitants of Eden who had their Residence there from before the Fall of Adam to those days above 1500 Years Your Author would think in another Case it was Demonstration sufficient because that in all the Genealogies from Adam there is no mention of any such Children that Adam had which sure in so many hundred Years we should have heard of if there had been any such their Praise-worthy Integrity would not have been concealed But the Truth is there were no such Eve who was the Mother of all living brought forth Cain her first born Son this is evident in that at his Birth she said Gen. 4.1 I have gotten a Man from the Lord this Expression would not have been used if she had brought forth a Son before Again these pretended People it seems did not fall in Adam but the Apostle Paul saith Rom. 5.12 In Adam all sinned and ver 18. by the offence of one viz. Adam Judgement came upon all Men. From whence I argue thus 1. That if all men sinned in Adam then there were no such Pure Inhabitants in Eden who sinned not until the days of Noah But all men sinned in Adam Ergo c. 2. If through Adam's offence judgement came upon all Men to Condemnation then the sin of Adam was devolved upon all Men but through Adam's offence judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation Ergo c. These Arguments considered which do confirm each other may convince any Man that there were no such innocent Men which as your Author pretends were not defiled by Adam's Transgression D. I am at a stand and dare hot adhere to the aforesaid Opinion because your words do almost convince me of the contrary But whether this Opinion be true or false Fol. 8â— our Author saith it cannot be proved from the Example of the old World that those Marriages were sinful or that the World was drowned because of that Sin Yea he suggests they were not sinful because the Breach of no Law for saith he if there was a Law he desires to be shewed 1. What Law it was Fol. â—â— 2. When it was given 3. By whom it was given 4. To whom it was given 5. Where it was given 6. The Penalties for breaking it 7. The Reward promised to those that kept it Again he tells you The Act might be lawful yet some subsequent Accident unlawful whereof also he gives divers instances C. I am also at a stand as not knowing what to think of your Author who dares affirm that those Marriages before mentioned cannot be proved sinful Sure he doth not perceive the coherence of the Word which plainly demonstrats God's displeasure for that thing The Text saith Gen. 6.2 They took them Wives of all which they choose And the Lord said for that thing my Spirit shall not always strive with Man What can be more plain then that their choice was limited else what means the Word they took them Wives of all which they choose and that God was displeased with their Marriages but God is not displeased with such things that are not contrary to his minde From whence you may perceive it will be no difficult matter to prove those Marriages sin although your Author propounds to evade it many questions about the Law which should make it sin whereto in Answer I must tell him that the Sacrifice which Abel offered and God accepted may as well be reckoned to be without a Law and then it was a transgression for I will now ask the Author 1. What Law it was 2. When it was given 3. By whom it was given 4. To whom it was given 5. Where it was given 6. What Penalty for breaking it 7. What Reward was promised to those that kept it All these will be hard to be answerd for in truth a Child may tye more Knots then a Man can untye Secondly As to his unlawful Accidents I wonder why they are mentioned whereas there is so little Congruity between an Act and a subsequent Accident that nothing ought to be concluded concerning any Act from a following Accident Again I know none that pretend those Marriages to be the only cause that the World was drowned although they much displeased God and therefore your Author might have spared his labour in disproving it D. But to put all out of doubt for the decision of the Controversy and that the Proofs may be more certain Fol. â—â— There is a plain question stated as the Rule of the Discourse viz. Whether a Contract of Marriage between two Persons of different perswasions about Institutions in matters of Religion being performed and continued in be lawful or unlawful what say you to this C. What doth he mean by Institutions D. By Institutions he means that part of Religion which is no way our Duty without a Command C. That is all parts of Religion for there is nothing a Duty without a Command D. No it is but some part my Author saith as under the Law Circumcision the Passover Fol. â—â— c. and under the Gospel Baptism the Lord's Supper and laying on of hands C. And why not Repentance from dead Works and Faith towards God In a word I would know of you or your Author what makes any thing a Duty but a Command And all things which are commanded as they are Duties so they are Institutions D. Why are all Commands of God Institutions C. Yes surely no Wiseman will gainsay that D. Then the question is not so plain for the decision of the controversy as I thought it to be for you will have it according to your Explication of Institutions to be thus viz. Whether a Contract of Marriage made between two Persons of different perswasions in all matters of Religion be lawful or unlawful C. That is the question properly understood D. Then I think that I must answer it is unlawful That is the most unequal Yoak that may be That is worse then for Israel to plow with an Ox and an Ass together This is an evil not to be born this will hinder Prayers this will dishonour God and hinder the bringing up of Children in the Fear of God C. Then I have done there is no need I see for me to tell you what I say to it D. In truth the stating of the question as you explain it desides the matter But I presume the Author did not think so I suppose he did not consider that all Commands of God are Institutions Wherefore pray let us proceed and give me an account what you say to the following Discourse wherein we first find his answer to the Patriarch's Care in the Marriage of their Children 〈◊〉 11. C. As to that Answer it is much like the rest For 1. 〈◊〉 11. He saith good Men have done things for Examples to others as Paul 2 Thess 3.8 9. 1 Cor. 9. from verse 1. to the 9.
wise Man will grant there were Reproofs and Threatnings sufficient in the Law except your Author is of the Rich Man's mind Luke 16. 30. that thought nothing prevalent unless one was sent either from Heaven or Hell to give Warning Now the Sin of Solomon is apparent 1 King 11.1 But King Solomon as if the Holy Ghost would have you take notice that the Glory and Honour of Solomon was much eclipsed in that he loved many strange Women together with the Daughter of Pharaoh of the Moabites Ammonites Edomites Zidonians and Hittites of the Nations concerning which the Lord said to Israel Ye shall not go in unto them Solomon clave to these in Love Now what can be more plain than this that the Women of the Moabites Ammonites Edomites Zidonians and Hittites together with the Daughter of Pharaoh who was an Egyptian to whom Solomon clave in Love were of the People concerning whom the Lord said ye shall not go in unto them the Text plainly saith it and then surely it was a great Evil in Solomon so to transgress the Word of God I will add the Words of Nehemiah chap. 13.26 Did not Solomon sin by these things This was the beginning of his Sin and his Idolatry succeeded for both which God was displeased and his Repetition of and continuing in Sin provoked God to rend the Kingdom from him after much Patience and Forbearance 〈◊〉 33. The last instance is of the Jews in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah wherein your Author tells us that mention was made of the Jews marrying with Moab Ammon and Egypt but that was not reckoned as their Sin but much of the contrary What have we here We need not speak further of the unlawfulness of such Marriages for now your Author tells us they are more than lawful viz. very good and righteous for they are much contrary unto Sin Then he proceeds and tells you whereas it is said Nehemiah contended with them and cursed them and smote some of them It is true saith your Author he contended with some Body But with whom Fol. â—â— Not saâ—th he with those that married Wives of Moab and Ammon but with those that married Wives of Ashdod Indeed your Author in his Epistle reckons himself unlearned and beggs Excuse upon that account But I did hope he would not have appeared so unlearned as to wrest the Scriptures at this rate as he if knew not what he said I will again enquire but not of your Author who Nehemiah did contend with And he himself will inform us chap. 13.23 In those days he saw Jews that had married Wives of Ashdod of Ammon and of Moab and he contended with them and cursed them c. Who were they No man that understands his Native Tongue will be of your Author's mind Whom I will now ask why Nehemiah speaks of Ammon and Moab Why doth he say he took notice of the Jews that had married Wives of Ammon and Moab Why doth he mention them in this matter more than those who had married Wives of Israel if he did not intend that those Jews which married the Daughters of Ammon and Moab should be included in his Curse and Reprehension surely it was Nehemiah's Intention he cursed them and did account it a great Evâ—l and transgression against God to marry stange Wives 1 ver 27. And tells you Solomon King of Israel hujuscemodi peccavit sinned after the same manner ver 26. Again Let me ask your Author why mention was made of Moab Ammon and Egypt by Ezra upon this occasion if it were no Sin to joyn in Marriage with them But if you will believe Ezra himself chap. 9.1 2. he tells you that he was ifnorm'd that Israel had not separated themselves from the People of the Lands viz. the Canaanite the Hittite the Perizzite the Jebusite the Ammonite the Moabite the Egyptian and the Amorite for they viz. the Israelites have taken of their Daughters for themselves viz. the Daughters of all the aforementioned People and for their Sons so that the Holy Seed have mingled themselves with the People of those Lands it was these tidings that made him rend his Cloaths and sit astonished ver 3. and this Affinity he confesseth to God ver 13 14. as a great Trespass and a Sin of great Provocation chap. 10.2 10. Wherefore I must conclude with Ezra God punished them for their strange Marriages chap. 9.13 notwithstanding your Author's Word Besides I cannot but wonder at your Author so to limit Nehemiah's Contention viz. that it was only with those that married Wives of Ashdod 〈◊〉 34. which if granted will stand him in no stead for Ashdod a City of the Philistines was no part of the Seven Nations which Israel were commanded to destroy If your Author will consent to the Relation of the Scripture he will find it so Deut. 7.7 Where they are reckoned up 1. the Hittites 2. the Girgashites 3. the Ammonites 4. the Canaanites 5. the Perizzites 6. the Hivites 7. the Jebusites seven Nations greater and mightier than thou which also is found exactly Josh 3.11 but here are none of the Philistines mentioned or intended so that all your Author's Evasion falls to the ground for in truth the Philistines were another People distinct from the Seven Nations and always so accounted and by your Author's favour were not of the Children of Anak who were Hittites His proof Josh 11.22 is too weak that only informs you that some of the Children of Anak escaped Joshua's Sword and dwelt amongst the Philistines in Gaza Gath and Ashdod Now to his second thing that Israel were permitted to marry with Edom Egypt Ammon and Moab Fol. â—â— and so it was far from being a Sin in them I cannot but wonder that your Author who sometimes is so exact that he must know when where by whom and to whom c. a Law is given should presume to affirm such a Permission I would now know of your Author when and where it was permitted and by whom and where the Record is to be found that we may have recourse thither for our further satisfaction for we are not satisfied with what your Author saith in that Case his words are not of such weight to convince me and his only Text which I find him mention is Deut. 23.3 wherein I find no Toleration for Marriages with Edom Ammon Moab and Egypt Recorded Nay it is so far from being there found that it doth not once mention any Marriage It is said of Edom and Egypt Their Children should enter into the Congregation of the Lord in the third Generation but what that is to Marriage I do not understand but if it was what is it to Ammon and Moab so such pleaded for by your Author concerning whom it is said ver 6. Thou shalt not seek their Peace or their Prosperity for ever Surely no Marriage was permitted with them I perceive your Author is sometimes content with slight proofs although at