Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 18
SECT. XVIII.
The insufficiency of what Mr. Marshall, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake, bring to avoid my Exception, that it is without proof supposed that the doubt answered 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. did arise from reading the fact Ezra 9. & 10. and not from the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. is manifested.
HAving thus plainly (saith Mr. Marshall) overthrown your interpretation, it remains that I make good my interpretation against your exceptions; I said their doubt seems to arise from the law of God, which was in force in Ezra's time, where Gods people were ordered to put away their infidel wives and children, as a polluted seed which God would not have mingled with his own. You answer, first you see very little agreement between this case and that, and that the cases are very far different of two persons under the law, the one a Jew by profession, the other a stranger; secondly, in that none of the phrases, except the word (holy) are used in the one place which are used in the other; thirdly, you rather think their doubt arose from a former Epistle which he had written to them, mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators or Idolaters, hereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbelieving yoke-fellows.
Answ. It is true, these things Mr. Marshall here sets down, were in my exception against his setting down the occasion of the Corinthians doubt, and in answer to Mr. Thomas Goodwins reason for it, Examen page 71. But when Mr. Marshall made this the ground of his 4th. argument, I answered as I said before, 4. things, to the first of which Mr. Marshall saies nothing, but by his own phrase [their doubt seems to arise from the law of God] and Mr. Gerees page 20. [it might probably arise] my answer is confirmed that it is but a conjecture that the Corinthians had any relation in this matter to the action in Ezra. Now this is answer enough to Mr. Marshals 4th argument, which is grounded on this, that the doubt arose from that fact. But if that be but an uncertain ghess, then how can Mr. Marshall conclude thence that the answer must be fitted to the resolution of that or the like case, and because according to my interpretation it is not so fitted, therefore my interpretation is not the Apostles meaning: For my part I am so far from confessing (as Mr. Marshall imputes it to me) that if the occasion of the doubt were the reading that story of putting away their strange wives in Ezra and Nehemiah, Mr. Marshals argument must stand good against my interpretation, that I think if it were the occasion of the doubt, yet my interpretation of the Apostle would as well suit with the doubt so occasioned as Mr. Marshals, nor do I think Mr. Geree could make good that speech of his in his vindic. Paedobapt. page 20. that if the scruple were occasioned from the fact Ezra 10. 3. that then it doth carry the sense quite to him and overthrow mine; it being remembred that the doubt was as Mr. Marshall rightly puts it in his 3d agreement, page 146. whether the believer were to retain the unbelieving yoke-fellow. Yea I say now, that if the Apostle did allude to the term [holy seed] Ezra 9. 2. it there signifying a legitimate seed, it serves well to prove my exposition of [holy] for [legitimate.] As for the doubt whether their children were to be put away, neither hath Mr. Marshall brought a word to prove that it was the doubt, nor hath he said any thing in answer to my reason to the contrary from the Analysis of the words, to wit, the particles [foreign, else were] shewing it to be an argument ab absurdo consequente, it is impli'd they counted it out of doubt their children were not unclean, but an absurdity to imagine so. But what saith Mr. Marshall to my exceptions against Mr. Thomas Goodwins confident conceit, that the occasion of the doubt, 1 Cor. 7. 13. must arise from the fact Ezra 9, & 10. by reason of the agreement of matter and phrase?
I reply, saith he, first, that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose, for though they were both unbelievers when they were maried, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the other remained an infidel, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remaining an alien, their case was the very same, and they finding their condition parallel with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves to make this their doubt.
Answ. He that would make their case the same must not vary it in one particular: all Casuists and Lawyers determine a case to be varied when one materiall circumstance is varied. And yet Mr. Marshall a vouches the cases were the very same, though he sayes not a word to that material disparity I made between them, the Iews being under the Law of Moses and professing it, the Corinthian Christians not so, and yet that doubt if it were occasioned by that fact must arise from the doubted force of the Law of God, as Mr. Marshall rightly allegeth. As for that which Mr. Marshall saies, they were the one an unbeliever, the other a believer, when the scruple arose, it takes not away the disparity in the cases as I set it down, which is material to shew there was not agreement in the matter, and so not one likely to be the occasion of the doubt of the other. For this difference at their first mariage varied the case in order to the doubt, the Iews fact being occasioned by Gods law, which did condemn as well the first entring on mariage with the unbeliever, as the continuing in it, but it was not so with the Corinthians, who did not question their first entring into mariage when both were unbelievers, which they would have done if their doubt had risen from that law, but onelyonly they doubted of their continuance in it one being an unbeliever. But to shew it to be more unlikely that the doubt of the Corinthians arose from that story, sith my Antagonists place so much to their purpose in this supposed parallel of their condition, which they prove not, I shall to the disparities before alleged, which vary the case, add some more. As that the case of the Iews was not of the wives putting away of her husband, but of the husbands putting away his wife; but here the doubt is as well of the believing wifes leaving her unbelieving husband, as of the believing husbands putting away his wife, and this leads to another disparity, the Iews case was about a divorce in way of authority or power in the hu…band putting away his wife, but this of a wives leaving of her husband, was never by way of authority or power, but only of will, there the fact was not simply for Idolatry or unbelief, but chiefly because of their descent from the people whose affinity the Lord had forbidden, but here no scruple arose from the strangeness of the nation, but from the unbelief only of the one party. More of these might be alleged to shew that there is not such agreement in the cases as to conclude the doubt of the one to arise from knowledge of the fact of the other. Nevertheless by the way it may be observed, that if the cases of the Iews and Corinthians were the same, and yet the law that bound the Jews did not bind the Corinthians, how will it follow that the same command which tyed the Jews to circumcise their infants, binds us to baptize ours, when the command of putting away wives did not bind the Corinthians, though less proper to the Jews than that of circumcision?
Secondly, saith Mr. Marshall, although the phrases used in Ezra differ from those used here, that makes nothing against this collection, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the administration they lived under.
Answ. My exception was against Mr. Thomas Goodwins confident assertion, that the occasion of the doubt 1 Cor. 7. 13. arose from Ezra 9. &. 10. by reason of the agreement in matter and phrase: so then if the phrases differ as Marshal confesseth, my exception against that assertion of Mr. Goodwin was right, and for the matter, let Mr. Cobbet commended by Mr. Goodwin himself be heard in his just vindic. part. 1. ch. 1. sect. 4. as for the paralleling of that Ezra 10. 44. with this case it is very unsuitable, that was a case of persons inchurched, having an express prohibition to the contrary, not to joyn with such, as persons betwixt whom and themselves there was a partition wall, yet doing it. This is a case of persons all of one sort, pagan, when first maried, and under no such prohibition; onelyonly after they were maried one imbraceth the faith. But saith Mr. Marshall, it makes nothing against his collection.
Answ. Mr. Marshall tells not what collection he means, but this I suppose is the collection, that the occasion of the Corinthians doubt was the reading or hearing of the relation of the fact Ezra 9. & 10. If this be the collection, I conceive it makes much against it, that the Apostle in answering the doubt occasioned thence should use none of the phrases there, though he had an eye on the story there.
But saith Mr. Marshall, the reason might be, because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received Dialect belonging to the administration they lived under.
I answer. Phrases it is true are used much after the customes in use, but that it should be likely the Apostle would not use phrases allusive to Iewish customs or laws in the old Testament when he wrote to the Corinthians, especially when he resolves a doubt occasioned by a Iewish law, is so contrary to the constant use of the Apostle, whose phrases are many of them Hebraisms, and allusive to the passages and rites in the old Testament, yea in this very Epistle 1 Cor. 5. 2, 3, 7, 8, 13. and 6. 16. and 7. 3. & 9. 13. &c. and to the use of the holy writers in the New Testament, as Mr. Gataker Mr. Marshalls Collegue hath prov'd at large again Pfochenius in an entire tract of that point, that neither is there any probability in what Mr. Marshall saith, nor do I believe that when Mr. Marshal hath read that book of Mr. Gataker, will he urge this any more. As for that which he saith, each speaking according to the received Dialect belonging to the administration they lived under, if by Dialect be meant as Grammarians use the word for diversifications of the same language, as in the Attick, Dorick, Ionick Dialects among the Greeks, it is a new piece of learning, which I never met with before, that Dialects belong to the administration they live under, and are diversified thereby, which I alwayes took to be diversified by the use of the several tribes or people of the same nation and language, in the same time in which the administration, that is (if I mistake not Mr. Marshals meaning, which is easie in so obscure a speech) Ecclesiastical rites and policy are the same, as at this day there's a different Dialect in the Northern and Southern English, though they have had the same Church rites and policy.
But Mr. Geree hath another reason to prove that the occasion of the doubt was from the fact Ezra 9. & 10. which he expresseth in his vindic. Paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 4. page 20. thus. And that the scruple and resolution were of this nature (that is from Ezra 10. 3.) there is evident presumption in the text it self v. 12. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, which hath reference to that before verse 10. And unto the maried I cōmand, yet not I, but the Lord, that is, as I once learned from that reverend Divine (whom for honour I name) Mr. Dod, the Doctrine of those equally joyned in mariage the Apostle delivered as from the Lord, that is, from the plain relation of God in the old Testament. But to the doubt of remaining together where one is a believer, the other an infidel, I say, not the Lord, That is not to be taken as though Saint Paul did resolve any thing against the mind of God. But this resolution he gave as an Apostle under the N. T. which was different from the dispensation of the Lord under the Law. For then an alien, if not a proselyte, did defile the Iew and the seed, as appears Ezra 9. Neh. 13. 23, 24. but now the Apostle resolves otherwise.
Answ. Mr. Dod was a man of very reverend esteem for holiness of life; but as for his conceit about this text, as if the Apostle when he saith v. 10. not I, but the Lord, should mean the doctrine against separation of those equally joyned in mariage, the Apostle delivered as from the Lord, that is, from the plain relation of God in the Old Testament, the contrary is rather true. For the doctrine for separation of the equally joyned in mariage seems plainly delivered Deut. 24. 1. and was so taken by the Vide Seld. uxor. Heb. l. 3. c. 18 &c.Pharisees Mat. 19. 7. and divorces frequently used among the Iews upon small occasions. And on the other side the doctrine for separation of the unequally voked by reason of different religion seems plainly delivered in the Old Testament, Deut. 7. 3. & 23. 3. as it was interpreted Ezra 9. 11. Nehem. 13. 1. And for my part I rather conceive (as Mr. Cobbet in his just vindic. part. 1. c. 1. sect. 1.) the meaning to be v. 10. not I, but the Lord, that is, not by any new revelation, but the Lord Iesus Christ expressely, Mat. 5. 37. & 19. 6. 8. 9. Mark. 10. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Lu. 16. 18. & v. 12. Not the Lord, that is Christ Iesus by express determination in the New Testa. but I by speciall revelation with Apostolicall authority. But were Mr. Dods interpretation current, yet it would be so farre from evident presumption, that the scruple arose from Ezra 9. & 10. that it would be a good argument to the contrary. For then the words v. 12. Not the Lord, but I, must have this sense, that the Lord in the old Testament had not determined the doubt of remaining together where one is a believer, the other an infidel, but the Apostle under the new, which were not true, for the Lord had expressely resolved for their separation: but if it were true that he had not, then is it not likely the doubt should arise from Ezra 10. 3. where there is an express determination, whereas by Mr. Dods interpretation the Apostle is made to say, the Lord in the old Testament had not determined that doubt. As for that of Mr. Geree, that the resolution of the Apostle was different from the dispensation under the law, by reason of the different state of the Iewish policy, it serves very well to shew, that as that law of separating an alien, so the law of Circumcision, and other laws, were from a peculiar respect to the state of the Iews afore Christs comming, and not from a common reason belonging to both Iews and Gentiles by vertue of the Covenant of grace, which is brought to make a perpetuall rule serving for us in Baptism.
Thirdly, saith Mr. Marshall, and as to that you say, that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I answer, should that be granted, yet my sense remains as strong as before.
Answ. Mr. Marshall denies not but that the doubt might arise from that which is 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Mr. Geree vindic. Paedobapt. ch. 1. sect. 4. page 20: sayes thus. And for my part I dislike not your conceit of that occasion if you take it not exclusively to exclude ours; for I conceive the doubt might arise from both; and one of them would adde strength to the other, and the doubt having appearance of ground from both would be more strong. I confess, if the occasion of the doubt were from both, the doubt would be more strong: yet if it be granted the doubt to arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. Mr. Marshals 4th argument in his sermon would not be more strong, for it rested on this, that the Corinthians doubt arose from the fact in Ezra; which is weakened, yea comes to nothing if there were another occasion of the doubt, though Mr. Marshall say, his sense (he would say argument) remains strong as before. But let us hear his reason.
For if this scruple now rose, that if believers because of the infidel condition of the husband or wife might not by the rule of the Gospel continue in mariage-society with them, it must be from some rule of religion which must strike upon the conscience; and from what rule could they gather that their mariage which before was lawfull, was upon their conversion turned into fornication?
Answ. The thing that Mr. Marshall brings this as a reason for, is, that if it be granted the Corinthians doubt to arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. yet his sense remains as strong as before; Now what coherence this hath with the thing it is brought to prove I do not understand, but rather in this, and that which follows in this paragraph, the discourse of Mr. Marshal seems to be intangled as if he had been puzzled, and heeded not whereto he spake. For if it be granted that the doubt came from that 1 Cor 5. 9, 10, Why doth he frivolously ask from what rule they could gather their mariage, (he should say continuance in mariage) which was before lawfull, now upon their conversion was turned into fornication, he should have said made unlawful? sith if the doubt be granted to come from thence, the rule of religion is plainly expressed to be, that a believer is not to keep company foreign, to be mingled with Idolaters, which was a rule of religion, that might strike upon a believers conscience, & make the believer think it unlawful to continue in mariage society, though they did thence not conceive their mariage turned into fornication, as Mr. Marshall doth incōmodiously express the question. So that the reason of Mr. Marshall (if there be any reason in it) strengthens not Mr. Marshals sense against mine, but serves as well the occasion of the doubt as I make it, as it doth Mr. Marshall. But perhaps ther's more to the purpose in that which follows.
And if their doubt were (as your self grant) whether it were lawfull for a converted party or a believer still to retain their infidel wife or husband (not of unbelievers whether they be sanctified matrimonially one to another) the doubt must necessarily arise from something in religion, some case which was peculiar to believers, now (as Mr. Beza saies truly) the doubt being in their consciences of an unlawfulness to continue in their maried condition from something peculiar to Gods people, the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacify their consciences, in referring them to the civil laws of other Nations, by which their mariage is proved lawfull.
Answ. Mr. Marshal undertook to confirm his sense by granting that the doubt of the Corinthians resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13. might arise from that 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. now I see not any word tending to any argument from this concession of the occasion of the doubt to confirm his sense, but what he brings is from the Apostles resolution of the doubt as he conceives me make it. And therefore it is apparent Mr. Marshall as a puzzled man had forgotten what he was to prove. But perhaps he hath however some good new argument against my interpretation, let us examine it then. That which he would evince seems to be, 1. That by my interpretation the Apostle should referre the Corinthians doubting from something in religion to the civil laws of other Nations to pacify their consciences. 2. That the Apostle so doing should have used a most indirect argument to pacifie their consciences. I answer, The Corinthians were Greeks, and what civil laws of other Nations it should be meant they should be referred to, except the Romans to whom they were then subject, I do not apprehend. This then Mr. Marshall would insinuate, that according to my interpretation the Apostle should referre the Corinthians to the civil laws of the Romans to pacifie their consciences. But Mr. Marshall doth not shew the least hint of such a consequence from my interpretation, nor indeed can. I said expressely Exercit. page 16. and Examen page 77. that the Apostle resolves them by his Apostolick authority, as himself declares v. 12. As for that which Mr. Beza saies it would be a most indirect argument to pacifie their consciences in referring them to the civil laws of men, I grant, taking [indirect] for an argument unsuitable to the doubt, and so unlikely to satisfie. But no such thing is done by my exposition, yea my exposition of the forepart of the 14th v. in which is the medium which confirmes the resolution v. 13. is the very same with Mr. Bezas, as I have often shewed, nor is it yet disproved. But Mr. Marshal goes on thus.
And to what purpose should he discourse of bastards or the like, when their consciences were scrupled in something which began to concern them upon their conversion? and to tell them they were sanctified in their unbelief could never have reached the scruple arising after they began to be believers, because their mariage might be firm and good while they remained unbelievers; yet the infidel might now become impure in that relation of mariage to the other which was converted.
Answ. To what purpose the Apostle should discourse of bastards, and whether that which I make the meaning could reach the scruple arising, is best perceived by the Analysis of the Apostles reasoning, which as framed by me is not excepted against by Mr. Marshal, and therefore this question of Mr. Marshals he might easily have answered himself, if he would have heeded my words, which distinctly tell him the forepart of the 14. v. yields a medium to prove the Apostles resolution v. 12, 13. and the later by an argument ab absurdo consequente confirms that medium. Whether my interpretation be true hath been discussed. Now whereas Mr. Marshal concludes, And therefore it remains that it must be resolved from some rule which must reach believers as they were the people of God, and not be common to infidels with them: Now what is that argument which Paul here uses to satisfie them? (which must reach them as they were believers) your self grant it is this, else were your children unclean, which is the medium, because your children are not unclean but holy, therefore the unbeliever must be granted to be sanctified to the wife or husband; this argument must therefore necessarily inferre some kind of holiness, which is appliable only to the state of religion, therefore it must be federal holiness.
I answer, The apostle resolved the Corinthians by his Apostolicall authority, which was a rule reaching believers as they were the people of God. As for the argument, though it be not so rightly framed by Mr. Marshal as I use to do, yet that which he saith, I grant to be part of the argument as I make it, but I deny that this must necessarily inferre, that the holiness there meant is appliable onelyonly to the state of religion, till Mr. Marshall doth not onelyonly say, but prove it, and therefore federall holiness is not yet proved from this text by Mr. Marshall or any other that I know.
Mr. Blake in his answer to my letter ch. 7. pag. 33. will not have it likely that the occasion of the doubt should be from the command, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10.
1. Because it's not yielded by many that any part of divinely inspired Scripture is lost. And he saies, that Chrysostom finds the precept 1 Cor. 5. 9. in the same chapter, v. 2.
Answ. As there be that deny any part of holy Scripture to be lost, so there be that grant it, conceiving it no more impeachment of the providence of God, Vide Camer. praelect. de verbo Dei Glasc. c. 13.or faithfulness of the Church, than that which all must grant, that all copies extant are so corrupted in some passages, that there is no way to restore the right reading, but by conjecture: nor do they conceive it such a dammage to the Church as is inconsistent with Gods care of them, though some books be lost, if that the same doctrine be in these now extant. As for the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. Beza in his annot. on that place, not onelyonly conceives, but proves from the particle foreign but now, that the Ep. v. 9. distinguished from that he then wrote, must needs be another Epistle which is now lost. To which may be added that v. 10, 11. are plainly for an explanation of what he had written before, which they were apt to mistake, and therefore there was some other Ep. which he thought needful to explain by this. As for Chrysostom, because Mr. Blake quotes him not, I cannot tell where to seek what he allegeth. I do not find the thing in his Homily on 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11. where else to seek it I know not.
But saith Mr. Blake, if granted that v. 9. mentions a former Epistle, yet v. 10. seems to be his present further explanation, and no part of the contents of that Epistle formerly written, and so there is no room left for your conjecture.
Answ. It follows rather on the contrary, that if v. 10. be a further explanation of the former Epistle; then it is part of the contents of the former Epistle, though not fully understood, otherwise it should not be an explanation but an addition. Which is furrher confirmed in that the new explanation seems to be not so much about the object or sorts of persons with whom he had forbiddden them formerly to keep company, as about the extent of the act of keeping company, concerning which his prohibation was to be limitted. And therefore there is room left for my conjecture, that the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. might be occasioned by the Epistle mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. yea I say further, if that v. 10. were no part of the contents of the former Epistle, yet if the Corinthians (whom Mr. Blakes conceives to be rational men, and thence (though vainly) collects that they must doubt of their childrens case as well as their own) did conceive it a like reason, they should not keep company with Idolaters as with fornicators, they might raise their doubt from the prohibition which did not contain the thing doubted of: which hath the more likelihood, if it be true which Heinsius mentions in his Exercit. on that verse, that an interpre…er conceives the Corinthians under the name of fornicators in the former Epistle understood idolaters.
Mr. Blake goes on. And put the case further that the 9. & 10. v. do both express the contents of that Epistle, why do you take both the ends, and leave out the middle? making their scruple to be their converse with husbands or wives fornicators or idolaters, and not as well with covetous or extortioners?
Answ. I left out the middle terms [covetous and extortioners] in my Examen page 71. because I conceived it superfluous for me to put them in. Their onelyonly scruple I mentioned was there conversing with the Idolatrous or un believing yoke-fellow, because the Apostle only resolves that doubt 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. about which the dispute I held was. Whether or no they scrupled conversing with covetous or extortioners, I could not tell, because the Apostle is silent about that doubt. The alleging of 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. by me, was not to shew what was their scruple 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. but what might be the occasion of it, and that was exprest by me only as a conjectute, not asserted by me to be likely, but only to be far more likely than that the occasion of the doubt was from the fact mentioned Ezra 10.
But Mr. Blake addes. If this conjecture of yours hold, the Apostle thus writes to the Corinthians, if any brother hath a wife that is an idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away.
Ans. My conjecture was, that possibly the occasion of the Corinthians doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. might be from that which he had written before to them, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10. but how, if this hold, the Apostle must write to the Corinthians thus, if any brother hath a wife that is an Idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away, I cannot imagine. For neither doth it follow that if that passage ministred occasion of doubt about the one sort, (viz.) the unbelievers, it must also raise doubt of necessity about the other. Wise men not alwayes seeing the consequent of that principle which they are possessed with, or if they had the occasion of the doubt from 1 Cor. 5. 9. doth it follow that the Apostle must either know that to have been the occasion, or resolve their doubt with reference to it? and if he did, yet there was no necessity he should resolve it in like manner concerning fornicators as idolaters. Yea but saith Mr. Blake, it must needs be that the Apostle takes in every part and piece of their scruple, and so the question about divorce so much agitated, would have been determined.
Answ. It is likely the Apostle took in every part and piece of that which was propounded to him as the Corinthians scruple indeed, but there was no necessity he should take in every part of that which Mr. Blake may imagine would have been their scruple if my conjecture hold. But if the Apostle had taken in every part of their scruple, yet the question about divorce so much agitated might have been undetermined. The question so much agitated I think from the following words is that which was once in Oxford agitated between Dr. Howson, Mr. Banny and others on the one side, and Dr. Pye, Dr. Rainolds and others on the other side, which as I remember was principally whether upon a lawfull divorce for adultery the innocent party might mary again; Howson holding with Bellarmine the negative, Dr. Rainolds and others the affirmative. I do not suppose they held now no lawfull divorce, for then they should have destroyed the thing supposed in their question; and though it might be they held Moses permission was to put away a wife in case of adultery only, that the nakedness or uncleanness mentioned Deut. 24. 1. is adultery, yet I think that was not the main question. Now if the Apostle had taken in every part of the Corinthians imagined scruple, and resolved as Mr. Blake would have it, that if my conjecture hold then he must write to the Corinthians if any other brother hath a wife that is an idolater, fornicator, a drunkard, or extortioner, let him not put her away, yet this doth not determine the controversie so much agitated, whether the innocent party might mary after a lawfull divorce, except by destroying the thing supposed, that there is a lawfull divorce, and if it did determine that which Mr. Blake makes Dr. Howsons tenet, he needs not wonder they did not hit on this text for their purpose, sith such a resolution of the Apostle is bred only in Mr. Blakes brain.
As for that which Mr. Blake addes about my Uncle Whately, of precious memory, his retraction, I doubt whether Mr. Blake addes it in jest or in earnest. 'Tis true he did ingenuously retract in a passage before his Carecloth the positions in his Bridebush, The sins of adultery and wilfull desertion disolve the bond of matrimony, acknowledging it would follow then that a husband might not lawfully use his wife having plaid the adultress if that were true, for they should be no more husband and wife, if the bond of wedlock were broken: But if I had been acquainted with him sooner, and held the same conjecture I do now, yea and the Apostle must have resolved as Mr. Blake imagines would follow if my conjecture hold, yet the suggestion of this would have been so far from saving his retraction, that it would rather have necessitated him to it. For if the Apostle should write thus, If any brother hath a wife that is a fornicator, let him not put her away, would it not the rather follow that fornication dissolves not the mariage knot, and so my Uncle Whately must the rather have retracted that position, that it did, if by my acquaintance wth him sooner this had been suggested to him? What follows is answered in my Postscript, which I thought then, and still think, is answer enough to Mr. Blakes answer to my letter. In which I find so many absurd glosses, dictates, flirts, incoherent, inconsequent, impertinent passages, and so little solid nervous disputing, that as I had not said so much as I have done heretofore had not Mr. Vines and Mr. Calamy by their vain crackings necessitated me to it, so neither would I have added this, but to stop the mouths, if it may be, of those that call on me to answer him, who I think is sufficiently answered, till some judicious person shews me wherein my answer to him in my Postscript is defective. I am afraid my judicious Reader will give me little thanks for troubling him with so much. I pass now to the vindicating of mine own exceptions against Mr. Marshals interpretation.