3 36 The Birth= Priviledge and Covenant- holinef e Ch, 39 I Cor. 7. r4, is not true of inflrumental fan51iftcation and federal holineIre, but true only of matrimonial, which we willingly yield, and are ready to prove that there is like truth in both. Of his 21t\ That it ù at large 'hewed, that neither Mailer Marfhall in his Serer mon, nor hù defence, Math anfwered the objefiion from the inconfiflen= cy of the Aposiles included propofition with bù expoftion. If Mallet Tombes can reconcile Maffer Marfhals Expofition with that Pro- pofition, I (hall rejec`I his Expofition, as all muff (that have eyes in their heads) rejea this Propofition. So diverfe other inferen- ces are drawne from this bottome; now if the bottome (land , I confeffe a great part of the building (for ought I fee) may hold; but if that fall, he cannot deny but it falls with it. The triall then of this and one other is inflar omnium, when he had as before formed the Apofiles argument, and drawne out the Propofition for his turne, I reply page 37. of my Anfwer, I appeale to your felf whether the truth of that lequel (by you rightly laid down) do depend upon that Propofition, which you draw from thence; Is the Apoflles major proposition of parents in general? or of one parent beleeving and another unbeleeving in particular? The truth of the Apoftles lequel depends on this Propofition ; All the children of an unbeleever are uncleane; unletre for genera- tion he or (hebe fanEtif ed by a beleever. This Mailer Tombes takes notice of Apol, page. 123. and faits, Mailer Blake miilikes not my forming the Apoflles argument , but he excepts againfi the Propofition, I conceive the Apo/lles fequel pre - fuppofeth,which is,All the children of thofe parents Whereof the one is not fanE iJed to the other,are unclean; To this (faith Mailer Blake) 1 appeale to your felfe whether the truth of that fermi by you right. ly laid downe, do depend upon that Propofition Which you draw from thence: yet in his Antidote, pap,.16. bath a face to fay,That the le two Propofitionr, All the children whereof one parent is not fanali feedto the other, are uncleane, None of the children whereof one parent ù not ranaified to the other, are clean and holy, is confefl by Charnier, 744 er Blake and others; what can I imagine but that Mailer Tombes knowingly fattens this grofíe untruth upon me ? feeing he fo well knowes that I both deny it, and have argued againff ir; (having madefuch defence as he could in his apology of it) yet now in his Antidote laies I confeffe it. I am over -much honoured to be named (if I may fay fo) the day that Charnier is mentioned; but
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=