Chap. 3 9 of the i.f ue of Beleevers. not what can be laid more (imply or fenfeleny, and that there is nothing in them worthy of `Paull fpirit ; So I may fay of this fuppo(ititious fpurious interpretation put upon this text in Pauls Epifile. Erafmus is deférvedly troubled that thefe Epiftles fhould have their verbofous Comments, any may equally be troubled that fuch a reafon fhould finde defence from Mailer Tombes in fo many words. My next challenge is from the phrafe in which it is delivered, altogether unfuitable to a reafon of this dohrine, upon a three. fold account. I. Being only to tell them,that the legitimation of their iffue proved the lawfulneffe of their marriage - fociety, he fhould attri- bute all (as to either fex) to the beleever, when the childe owes his legitimation equally to either parent. 2. That being to give a reafon of the lawfulnefï'e of marriage in fach a fpecial cafe, he fhould give his reafon of equal concern- ment to all marriages,where both are unbeleevers,both beleevers3 as well as this between a beleever and an unbeleever. 3. When he is to fpeak only of legitimation and baftardy , he fhould phrafe it in fuch uncouth language,and in words fitit onely futiable to their parents Ecclefiaflical capacity, whether title to it, as in the beleever, or want of it, as in the unbeleever ; Now, on the other hand interpret the Apofiles words (as his method will e- qually bear) accordingly as you have heard before, and no fuch in- convenience followesfrom the words either verf, 14. or 16. And now Malter T ombei may eafily receive anfwer to that odious in- ference, which he mikes from our interpretation of Covenant-ho- line% : eAccording to this interpretation (faith he) the medium of the poftle to prove the lawfulne fe of the living of a beleeving wife with an unbeleeving husband, will ae well prove the lawfulne f f e of a believing ffrnicatrix with an unbelieving fornicator, as may i apeare (faith he) by a Syllogistical Analyfs of the Apoftles argu- ment, the major whereof is this, T hat man and woman may live to- gether, notwithftanding the unbelief of one party, whereof one is fantlifled to the other for begetting an holy feed. This is mani- 1 feilly the Apoftles reafons he hies, after our interpretation. But Maher Tombes is manifefily miflaken; not to mention the liberty, that he will fcarce allow another to leave out husband and wife expreft in the text, and inftead of it to put man and woman :The X x 3. Apoftle.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=