Of Ele[lfon. 2 , If we compare this with rhePar~Ue:C · fe in Nrbemiah and Ezra which the ~...-, /\pollle had in his eyes, (os hath been /hewn) this cannot be all the meaning Chap. )· 0 1 it. For when he would have them put away the Seed of firange Wives, as .......--v--J> 1,.1 clerw, the meamng could nor only bc 1 They were unclean or unfan<'l ilicd in their u!e to rhem; bur further, as perfons m their own flare unclean, in refpeCI: ofGod's Ordinance and Law~ and 10 a relrgtous refpe<'l in rhemfclves. l· We mufl never pur a fenfe upori the Holy Ghofl_'s meaning , which falls lhort of what may be fuppofed was aimed at. Now mwhat rational fenfe can it be fuppofed, That thefe Parents, o~ any Chriflians ,. lhould conceive rhefe Children unclean 111 rheirufe an~ fervtce, and obedtence performed to them? How an unbelieving Husband migbt be unfan<'li/ied to them in Marriage com– munion, and they defiled thereby, might ealily b~ c~nceived, in that they be– came o11rfirfb wtth them, and fo a Member of Chrtflis made one with a Limb of Satan: But the ufe of, a~d converfe with the Children, being but in a way of outward fervice and obedience, fuch as thefe Corifllhia11s had with all Hea– then Servants, Neighbours, ~c. The Children could not upon any ground be fuppofed unclean tn tlmr ufes as to them, the Parents of them, or in the per– formance of mutual duty each toother, no more than their Neighbours and Servants were in all civil offices that pa!fed between t!1;m. Their fcruple there– fore mufl needs be underflood of !he flare and condmon of the Children begot– ten upon fuch Parents in a religious refpe<'l,whether they were not robe eflcem– cd unclean and in that flare to Oodward in refpe<'l of the Covenants that the Children of ftrange Wives were among the Jews. Therefore thirdly, The Papifts have invented another Interpretation: The Husband is j(mCtJfied, that is, fay they, i11 hope of hi&Co11vtrjio11; and therefore the Apoflle exhorts her to <1bide with him; and fo the Children alfo may, by her flaying with her Husband; andfo educating them, becomeholy; and fo ue holy in hope, who elle would be unclean; and are m dange_r to prove Idolaters, if the Wife depart from thetr Father, and leave them to him. But, firfl, To fay they a:eholy; that is,by the fray of thei_r Parents together they may brJuch; other'."tfe.they are111tclecm, that 1S,there iS da8ger that they may be wzclea11 : How Wide iS tillS? And, fecondly, To fay the~ may bt converted, and fo in that fenfe to be ho– ly, is true of Unbehever~ Chtldren, as ·well as of thefe, Yea, thirdly, So by bemgmzctean, fhould be1_11eanr by the R;ule of Oppo· fition, thatotherwife there were no hope of their Conveilion, ifjhe depart; which is falfe. , . Fourthly, The Cafemilfl be altered i~ this be the meaning; for it mufl then always be withal fuppofed, That the Chtld_ren are left to be e?ucated by the unbelieving Party: For limply by her leavmg a_n Unbehever, if lhe have the Children with her, there were no danger of thetr Un.converlion, but the more hope. So as, this _fenfe will no~ h~ld, unlefs wit~al the Cafe b_e p_ur, that the Children are left With the unbehevmg Party; wluch that a behevmg Husband fhould do, and not takehisChil~ren with him, is not ahvays likely, But the Apoflle fuppofeth not, nor mentions any fuch cafe, but limply, the m-arriage .Afl; that they need not fear defilement to tbemfelvts in it from an Unbeliever, or to their Children begotten by it, Fifthly, Of the hopes of the Unbeliever~ Converlion he fpeaks afterwards, and makes a new and further Argument fortt, vtrjr 16. and propounds it but uncertainly, What knowtjl thot1! &c. but herehefays, Theyarebo!;·, H h h z. CHAP.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=