THE unlawfulness OF Mixt-Marriages, OR, An Answer to a Book entitled Mixt-Marriages Vindicated in a Dialogue between A and B  
Written by Stephen Tory.  
In a Friendly Discourse between E and F.  
First, showing that for Persons to be joined together in Marriage, who differ about Institutions in matters of Religion, is contrary to the Law of God, and therefore sinful.  
Secondly, That such Marriages being the breach of a Law, that there is a Rule left to the Church to Excommunicate Persons for so Marrying.  
TOGETHER With a Word to those Congregations in general, who allow of mixed Marriages; and another to Mr. Tory in particular.  
By John Griffith.  Ne impari jugo copulamini cum Infidelibus, 2 Cor. 6.14. It is a secret poison that destroyeth virtue more speedily then any thing. Doct. Babbington. Whoso causeth the Righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own Pit, but the upright shall have good things in possession, Prov. 28.10. 
LONDON, Printed for the author, and are to be sold by him, and by Enoch Prosser, at the sign of the Rose and Crown in Sweethings-Atly, at the East End of the Royal Exchange, 1681.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Christian Reader,  
THou hast before thee a controversy, that doth not often appear in Print, it therefore may seem strange to some, especially in this day, wherein there should be a healing of Breaches, and a uniting, rather then open, and public differences heightened and increased, which is most certainly true yet it hath pleased Mr. T. not to consider the times, but rashly( I may say) to publish his uncouth notions, and preposterous opinions, to the view of the world, on whom the fault must lie, and not on them who answer him, yet I hope Almighty God who brought light out of darkness, will bring forth good out of this contention( which he hath raised) to his People, and may be a means to purge some from their defilements, and be a warning to, and prevent others from falling into that evil some have done, who headily have transgressed against God, in taking them wives of all that they liked, Mr. T's book no doubt is as an Oracle to some, by which they are confirmed and settled upon their lees, and others emboldened to run hastily into the same sin: when a Door is opened to let sin into the Church, and another Door fast locked to keep that sin, and sinner in the Church, all means being taken away of purging, and reforming,( all which Mr. T. hath done his best endeavour to do) it's then high time, when such things are attempted to contend against such enormity, which is the thing that moved me to answer him in this public way; not that I am ambitious at this time, especially to make my name more public, and popular then it is already, though I am not ashamed of any thing I hold, and am persuaded is a truth, but am willing and desirous if Mr. T. be not convinced( by what I have writ) of his errors, that he will( seeing he hath begun it,) in the same public manner;( or any man for him) disprove me if he can, and I shall either yield or reply, if the Lord will spare and permit me, I desire to make( as I ever did) the Holy Scriptures my Rule; believing all that is written in them, and that they were written for my learning, and dare not embrace any thing but what there is Scripture warranty for, nor dare I receive any Doctrine, though never so plausible and elegantly delivered or penned, and though under never so many fair and specious pretences, if it come not with this authority thus saith the Lord; therefore if I have written any thing that is not consonant with the holy Scripture, I hearty desire Mr. T. or any other, by the word of God to detect it, and I shall be bound to be thankful for the same; but if I have the truth, and the mind of Christ according to the Scripture,( giving me those grains of allowance that all men short of perfection and infallibility must have) then I hope Mr. T. and all now of his mind and judgement,( upon a diligent impartial and unprejudiced search,) will find what I have writ to be true, which I hope they nor he, will not then insist any longer upon the justification of his mistake, but will be ready to aclowledge his reflections, and labour a reformation, which will be to the Glory of God, the peace and purity of the Church, and the honour of Mr. T.  
Reader, I desire thy careful and diligent reading this answer to Mr. T., and that thou diligently search the Scriptures, to see whether what I say be so or no, if thou art a Believer one regenerated, a Child of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, it highly concerns thee, that thou keep thy body which is the Temple of the Holy Ghost undefiled, if Unmarried, to mary only in the Lord, and not to yoke thyself with an unbeliever, for the Temple of God can have no Communion nor agreement with Idols nor Idolaters, if thou art an Unbeliever, ungodly, and in the woeful state of nature, thou mayest see that God looks upon thee as he did upon those nations Moab and Ammon &c. Whom God would not suffer the Children of Israel to mary with, because they were polluted, and unclean, being ungodly Idolaters, even so he forbids his Children now. Marrying with thee, because, being unregenerated thou art not washed, nor sanctified, nor justified in the name of our Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6.11. By this then thou wilt perceive if thou red and search diligently, that thou art by nature a Child of wrath, Eph. 2.3. And that the wrath of God abideth upon thee; John 3.36. And therefore God will not have his Children that are according to his mercy, saved by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit. 3.5. To be yoked together in Marriage with thee, let this open thine eyes, and cause thee to look into the sad condition of thy Soul, that thou mayest fly to Christ for Mercy, who will receive and embrace thee in his arms, and wash thee clean in his blood, by which thou wilt receive the forgiveness of thy sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified, by faith that is in him; Act. 26.18. Which I pray God my labours may be blessed as a means of good both to the Souls of Saints and Sinners, and then I have my whole design and end, Who am,  
The Servant of all men for the sake of Christ. John Griffith.   

THE UNLAWFULNESS OF mixed MARRIAGES, &c.  E. 
BRother, how do you do, how is it with you, is your Soul in Health.  F. 
I thank ye, I am indifferent well both in Body and Soul, I thank Almighty God, but not wholly free from some doubts and scruples, and am therefore very glad I have met with you, that I might impart something of my mind to you.  E. 
I shall be very ready, and willing, as the Lord shall be pleased to assist me to be helpful to you in any thing I can, but pray what is your trouble.  F. 
Have you not seen a Book Entitled Mixt-Marriages Vindicated a Dialogue between A. and B. the Author Stephen Tory.  E. 
Yea, I have seen it.  F. 
That Book hath been some trouble to me, nor am I yet so well satisfied, as I would I were.  E. 
There is an Answer to it, in a Conference between C. and D. written by I. D. have you not seen that.  F. 
Yea I have, and red it also.  E. 
Doth not that give you satisfaction.  F. 
I confess I am better satisfied then I was before I red Mr. D. but not so fully as I desire to be, I would therefore desire you to spend a little time to satisfy me further, and to weigh both Mr. S. T's Book, and Mr. I. D's answer to it, that if it be the Will of God I may receive further light.  E. 
That will I gladly do, I will also give my Opinion.  F. 
Pray then what do you say to Mr. Torys Book.  E. 
Truly in my judgement it is against the Truth, and that as much as in him lies, he hath opened a Door of Liberty, giving encouragement to Church Members to break Gods holy Law. 
Fol. 2.  For in the first place he makes so light of B's trouble about Mixt-Marriages, that he saith, I am sorry for your weakness, I think it is more cause of joy than sorrow, that we who but a few years since, were not accounted fit to live, should be so much in the favour of those Persons, as to make Marriages with us, and more especially we should take it well from them, who have the Government in their hands, and we ought to be thankful to God for such a mercy.  
First, in these words of Encouragement, he gives Members( to commit sin) he sets a sharp edge upon the fleshly Mind and desire of Men and Women in Church-fellowship to mary with those out of the Church or of the World, because it is weakness in any to be troubled at it.  
2. It's( saith he) more cause of joy than of sorrow, we should be so much in their favour, as to make Marriages with us:  
3. We ought to be thankful to God for such a Mercy: What a Door is here set open to them that are carnally minded. I will mary may any one say where I please, and with whom I fancy in the World, where there is more varieties of Beauties, and greater Fortunes than is in the Churches, and thereby I may much advance myself, and better my Estate in the World, and it is my weakness if I do not. My Brother Tory saith as much in effect; for saith he, it is a weakness in my Brother to be troubled at it, or offended with me for so Marrying: Nay, he saith my Brother hath more cause of joy than sorrow, and ought to be thankful to God for such a Mercy, if so, then is it my weakness if I have opportunities to better and please myself, if I do not mary in the World, these are great Encouragements.  
Secondly, There is besides, another great Inconvenience and Evil which tends to bring Mixt-Marriages into necessity, for this Liberty and Encouragement will prompt and cause Members not to look among themselves for Wives, except there be some Beautiful and Rich, but altogether their Eyes will be gazing upon the Widows and Maids abroad that are fair and wealthy, and them they will mary. The Members tho' never so virtuous and Holy may be without Husbands and Wives long enough,( to wit) those that dare not offend God in this matter, except they do make a virtue of Necessity( as the Proverb is,) or rather through the strength of Temptation do mary sinfully, which in time they may be compelled to do, or else they may go to their Graves single, or unmarried.  
Thirdly, Those words of his is a sign that he hath received the Spirit of the World, 1 Cor. 2.12. and is not guided in this matter by the Spirit of God, for the Spirit commands( and they that have received it will walk after it) that we should not love the World, neither the things that are in the World, If any man love the World, the love of the Father is not in him, for all that is in the world, the lust of the Flesh, the lust of the Eye, and the pride of Life, is not of the Father, but is of the World. 1 John 2.15.16. Now I pray, what is it, but the lust of the Flesh, and the lust of the Eye, &c. that must incline a Member of Christ to make his choice in the World, what can it be but to satisfy his Lust, and to make his aim and ends not the Glory of God, and the comforts that he may enjoy with one, that is not only one Flesh, but one in Spirit also with him, which comfort he cannot expect to have with one of the World, but as his design is to accomplish his own carnal and worldly ends, he can onely expect the fruits thereof. And for Mr. T. to encourage at this rate as he doth, Members to mix themselves in Marriage with the World is to endeavour to persuade them to love the World, and the things that are in the World, which whosoever doth, the love of the Father is not in him.  
4. The Apostle James doth tell us that the Friendship of the World is Enmity with God, whosoever therefore( saith he) will be a friend of the world, is an enemy to God. James 4.4. Pray what greater Friendship can there be than to mary with them, for one that is chosen out of the world, John 15.19. and as our Saviour saith one that is not of the World, John 17.16. to make one of the World Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, which is to have the greatest and nearest Friendship with the World as can be, which is Enmity with God.  
Fifthly, Wat a sad thing it is, and much to be lamented, that ever a man should say, that we have more cause of joy then of sorrow, that they who accounted us not fit to live, should 
A sign of a mean base Spirit, below that Princely honour Christ hath dienifi'd his with. Rev. 1.6.  have such a favour for us, as to mary with us; Surely the Nations that God driven out of their Land before the Children of Israel, did not think Israel fit to live, as we may perceive by Balak King of the Moabites, Numbers 22.23, 24, Chapters, and yet their Daughters married with them, and was this cause of joy to Israel, that they which a little before did account them not fit to live( and used all the means they could to destroy them) should be so much in their favour as to give their Daughters in Marriage to them, Numb. 25. No certainly for the favour of the Moabites kindled the anger of the Lord against Israel, ver. 3. and those that died of the Plague were 24000, ver. 9. I think there was no cause of joy in that favour but sorrow, which also will be the end of that liberty if taken Mr. T. gives.  
Sixthly, I would know of Mr. Tory whether the honest sober persons he speaks of, viz. some Presbyterians, some independents, and those some of the Church of England, were ever such Enemies as not to Account us fit to live.  
That he accounts it the weakness of any to be troubled or offended, if those of his persuasion do mary with them, and that it is more cause of joy than sorrow that we should be so much in their favour as to make Marriages with us, surely if they were honest and sober persons they would not account any though different in persuasion, from them, not fit to live, nor do I think Mr. T. hath such an ill opinion of them.  
The liberty then that he would give us indeed is to mary any body though a Mortal Enemy, and count it cause of joy too, that such will so far change their minds, as to show us the favour to make marriages with us.  
Seventhly, I would know of Mr. T. whether it is not a profaning the holy Name of God, rather then any other thing, for him to say we ought to be thankful to God for such a Mercy,( to wit,)  
That we should be so much in their favour as to make marriages with us, when such Marriages is the breach of Gods Law, and therefore sinful, for ought he hath said to the contrary.  
This were to rejoice in Iniquity or to do in some measure like them in Jeremiah, Chap. 7. from the first verse to the 11, Isaiah 5.20.21.  F. 
Truly I did not think there had been so much evil in those words of his, as I now see there is, he makes but an ill beginning, I am glad I have met with you, I pray what say you to his Answer to Gen. 2.18, &c.  E. 
What Mr. den hath said to that might suffice, but I shall do my part, and do say that it is an amazing thing to me, 
Fol. 3.  that a man in his right mind should affirm as Mr. T. doth, that it was not the design of Almighty God in Creating the woman to make her a meet help in the best things, and his reason is as trifling, for( saith he) if it had, you see how contrary the first woman proved, &c.  
First I would know of Mr. T. whether God in Creating Adam designed that Adam should sin, be driven out of Eden, and turned to Dust again, for so it proved, or whether God did design when he created Adam that he should love the Lord with all his soul, and keep his holy Precepts, live and enjoy the blessings and privileges given him; sure no rational man will say otherwise, nor Mr. T. neither, yet you see how contrary it proved.  
Secondly, Did God design in the Creating many thousands, that they should Steal, Murder, commit Adultery, with many other enormities, and be hanged for them; Mr. T. will not say that this was the design of God, but yet we see it proved so by many almost daily experiences.  
Thirdly, Did God design in his Creating of Millions, that they should reject Christ offered in the Gospel, to save them, and design their final unbelief, for which they shall most justly be damned and eternally Perish, Mr. T. will not say this was Gods design, &c. but yet we know by the Scripture that it proves, so Mark 16.16. then it will not follow, that tho' Eve proved a temptation to Adam, that God designed her to be no meet help to Adam in the best things.  
Fourthly, Eve when she tempted her husband to sin was not in, but much out of her place and duty, and therein thwarted the design of God, for she was given to Adam for a meet help, but it proves otherwise, for she was a hindrance with a witness, both in the best and worse things, for she causeth poor Adam to sin, and thereby to forfeit many of his best and most sweet privileges.  
Thus you see the weakness of Mr. T. Arguing.  
Fiftly, God designed his own glory, and honour, as Mr. D. notes, and I will add the good Temporal, and Eternal both of Male and Female when he Created them, he designed the latter good chiefly, and doth in all his gracious Acts suited to the Eternal happiness of Mankind.  
Now if the good of man in the best things be chiefly designed of God, then that was, and still is Gods design that the Woman should be a meet help to her Husband in the best things, which an unbelieving Woman can never be to a believing Man, but a let and hindrance as many by woeful experience hath found.  F. 
Very well this you say gives me good satisfaction thus far. I now see much weakness in Mr. T. arguing, but pray say something to his second affirmation.  E. 
Truly that is not worth the taking notice of, yet for your content, I shall. He saith, that the design of God in the making of a woman was Propagation.  
First, here indeed he fights with his own shadow, for who ever denied that one end was Prapagation, who doth he reason against here? none as I know. But  
Secondly, though that be granted God designed Propagation in his making the woman, will it therefore follow that he designed no other thing, may he not also design her to be a meet help in other things, yea in the best things as well Mr. T. saith indeed you see it was for Propagation, and not for Devotion, as his Brother doth imagine, for so saith the Text, saith he, Gen. 2.20. but they must have better eyes then I have to see, and more skill to red, that can make, Gen. 2.20. or any Text in all the Holy Scripture to say that God designed Propagation and not Devotion, this is an imagination indeed, but one of his own Brain, and a manifest addding to the word of God, and I am persuaded he is singular in this thing, as if God did not design, that the woman should be devote, keep his Laws, and obey his Voice, but be as Bruits under no Law of her Creator.  
Thirdly, I have indeed heard some Rude, Vain, and ungodly Men say, that Women have no souls, and except Mr. T. thinks so too, I cannot device how such an uncouth notion should get into his head, but I cannot tell, he may be suspected to be of that opinion, for he saith Adam said( of the Woman) this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, mind, saith he, Flesh of my Flesh, and not Spirit of my Spirit, and Soul of my Soul.  
As if God either gave the woman no spirit, nor no soul, or if he did, it was another not the same the Man had, but differing in institutions about the worship of God from him, they being united onely in Flesh, not in Spirit, nor in soul, and then I suppose all sober men will think that their oneness in the Flesh will turn but to a very poor and mean account, when a Man and his Wife shall but be one flesh, but two, and not one in spirit and soul, but divided. There will be little Love, much strife, no meet help, but unmeet hindrances both in Temporal and Spiritual things, as experience proves plentifully.  
Fourthly, And whereas Mr. T. saith, that where the Scripture speaks of this Relation, it's under the Notion of a Fleshly Relation, showing that this Relation may be where they differ in the Spirit. Which words of his are true, only in this case,( to wit) that when a Man and a Woman shall mary both of them, being in the State of Nature at that time, and one of them shall afterwards be Converted, then notwithstanding the Relation ought to be continued, but not begun as he insinuates it may, except both be in the Faith, therefore in other Cases Mr. T. begs the Question, and quotes for proof, Mat. 5.19. Mark. 10.8. 1 Cor. 7.14. but how those places proves what he affirms, he must be wiser then I that can tell.  
Fifthly, There is good reason why the Scripture doth mention,( and no more) a Man and his Wife to be one Flesh, because there's no Relation makes one of twain, but this of Marriage; all other Relations may be one in Spirit, and Soul, as Father and Child, &c. Yea, all the Saints ought to be of one Mind, and one Spirit, and are, when the unity of the Spirit is kept in the bond of Peace; but they, tho' of one Spirit, are not one Flesh: its Matrimony only that makes of twain one Flesh, oneness in Spirit and Soul ought to be first in them that mary and become one Flesh: So it was with our first Parents. God that gave Man a Woman to be a Meet-help, did not give her a Spirit, nor Soul differing from him in institutions, and to be no help to him in the best things; to say so, is little less then to charge Almighty God with designing Adams hurt, yea, his fall, in giving him a Wife of a different Spirit from his; across and perverse, as if she were to be even designedly a thorn in his side, and a snare to cause him to fall.  F. 
I am thus far very well satisfied that Mr. T. mistakes are great, and his assertions false, and that I may be yet more satisfied, pray go to the next.  E. 
His next is from Gen. 4.26. and then he makes a stir, and saith Expositors are not agreed about the Interpretation, and therefore to conclude from that place, those were the Church of God, 
Fol. 5.  the Sons of God, in opposition to carnal and Worldly men, is altogether unsafe, but then again he saith, it's uncertain to determine who those Sons of God were, Gen. 6.2. for he saith the Scripture doth not explain what, nor who they were, nor from whence: and the Learned are not agreed about it. But then after he hath raised the Mud,( by saying the Learned are not agreed) that we should not see to the bottom, he brings forth another opinion as strange as untrue, 
Fol. 6.  that the Sons of God mentioned, Gen. 6. were a generation of Men, begot by Adam before his fall; all this Mr. D. hath answered, and I think sufficiently; yet for your content, I shall add a little.  
First, It would be a hard thing I suppose for Mr. T. to prove that Adam did know his Wife, or beget a Child before his fall, he should first a proved, that before he had offered so many Impertinencies and Contradictions about it; besides what Mr. den hath said to refute him. Methinks Gen. 4.1. seems not only to import that Cain was their first Son, I have gotten a Man from the Lord, but that Adam knew not his Wife before, and Adam knew Eve his Wife, and she conceived and bare Cain: now this was after the fall, they had sin, God had  told them what their punishment should be, and they were driven out of the Garden of Eden before this, Gen. 3. therefore no Generation begotten by Adam could Inhabit the Garden of Eden, all his seed was driven out with him, being yet in his loins.  
Secondly, The Sons of God Gen. 6. then undoubtedly must be understood to be the then Church of God, the godly who feared, and served the Lord, and were separated from the wicked, and ungodly, those sons of God saw that the Danghters of men were fair, and they took them wives of all which they choose, Gen. 6.2. See the Dutch Annotations for this upon, Gen. 6.2. they say thus, Gods Sons looked on the Daughters of men, by these Sons of God( say they) are understood the posterity of the faithful Fore-fathers( note this) making profession of the true Religion, and being with their Families( which constituted the Church of God) separated from the unbelieving, and Carnal generation of Cain,( mark this also) as on the contrary by Daughters of men are principally understood those of Cains Posterity practising Idolatry, and living after the flesh: They were fair[ Heb. Good] i.e. fair, and they took them Wives out of all they had chosen( note this) Regarding onely the outward Beauty, and Worldly pleasure, not the true Religion, and fear of the Lord, nor their honest Parents consent. See Gen. 26.34, 35.  
Doctor Babington also saith, touching the first, 
See Dr. Babington Bishop of Worcester his notes on the 6th. Chap. of Gen.  it teacheth us as I said the great and grievous Corruptions of Man, who the more bound he is for Mercy to serve God truly, the more apt and prove he is to offend him highly.  
The Lord had now increased Mankind. and made them many to their great Comforts, if they could have used it, and now without all regard and thankfulness for such his goodness, headily, and hastily, wickedly and ungodly, they provoked him to anger and great displeasure against them, by fleshly following their own wills, and every Man Marrying as he best liked for outward Beauty, without regard of Gods liking, and inward Virtue, the Sons of God, that is the Children of the Godly, saw the Daughters of men, that is of wicked parents descended, such as Cain was, that they were fair, and they took them Wives of all that they liked.  
Here you see that these learned Authors are not of Mr. Torys mind nor those Fathers( as he calls them) name by him.  
This Fable of his( for so deservedly it may be called) rather becomes those sort of men that seek to make Religion odious, and the Scripture ridiculous than any sober man to publish.  
Thirdly, But one would wonder, if there were such men in Eden as he dreams of, what should come in their minds that they being in so goodly a place as Eden was, should go out of it, knowing too, that their Father Adam, and there Mother Eve was driven out in Just judgement for their Sin, could they imagine that they were driven out of Goodly Eden for their Sin, into a better place for their Punishment, for out of Eden they must come to see the Beauty of the Daughters of men, they could not go into Eden to show them how fair they were, God set a Guard to wit Cherubims and a Flaming Sword which turned every way to keep the three of Life, and I am apt to believe that if their were any innocent Generation of Adam left in Eden as there was not, they could no more come out of it, then his nocent Generation could get into it, therefore this opinion he labours so much to prove true, doth prove both false and ridiculous.  F. 
You do Brother give me content indeed, I see more and more that there is no weight in what Mr. T. saith; but now he further saith suppose this be a Dream, nay allowing that these men were the sons of Seth, and the Women were the Daughters of Cain &c.  
Yet this would not prove those Marriages sinful, 
Fol. 8.  or that the World was drowned, because of those Marriages, Pray give me some light in that.  E. 
I shall do my Endeavour so to do.  
His reason is if those Marriages were sinful then they were the breach of some Law, which he desires may be shown in Answer to seven queries which are these.  
1. What Law they broken?  
2. When that Law was given?  
3. By whom it was given?  
4. To whom it was given?  
5. Where it was given?  
6. The penalty for breaking it?  
7. The reward promised to those that kept it?  
A parcel of unlearned questions fitter to stumble the weak then to edify them, and truly I find men voided of truth, to dote much about questions, but yet for their sakes who are weak I will answer them.  
His first query is what Law they broken.  
I answer they broken the Law of God, he is the Law Maker yea the Maker of all Laws to his People, it was the Law of God, that the Sons of God broken in Marrying with the Daughters of men, a Law made by the Lord that none of the Godly should mary with the ungodly and superstitious, as is manifest the Lord was grieved at it, he repents that he had made Man. What should cause the Lord to repent that he had made man? but Sin, which is the breach of a law, and what should grieve him at his Heart, but the rebellion and wickedness of man? Was it not the Rebellion( which is as the Sin of Witch-craft) of Gods People that vexed his Holy Spirit? Isa. 63.10. Yea and what should kindle the wrath and anger of God against man so much, as to take away his Pitty and Compassion from him, that man and all other Creatures must be destroyed from off the Earth, could any thing thus provoke the Lord but Sin? yea and must it not be a grievous hateful sin too, that shall thus move that God that is slow to anger to such an unalterable resolution to destroy man without pity, the Sin of the Godly in marrying with the ungodly is that Capital Sin that did all this, more especially than any other; that fills up their measure, makes them ripe for this woeful destruction; as also saith Dr Babington upon the same place.  
We see( saith he) how grievous a thing unequal Marriages be when the Godly with the Ungodly, the believing with the infidel, the Religious with the superstitious, are unequally Yoked: surely even so grievous to God, that for this cause especially, the whole world was destroyed by the flood; the Lord doth not change, he disliketh it still, it is a secret poison that destroyed Virtue more speedily than any thing. Our Saviour himself sums up the sin of those times under two general Heads as the principal procuring cause of their destruction; Luke 17.26.27. And as it was in the Days of Noe, so shall it be also in the Day of the Son of Man. They did Eat, they Drank, they Married Wives, they were given in Marriage, until the Day that Noe Entred into the Ark: and the flood came and destroyed them all. See Mat. 24.37.38. Eating and Drinking in itself was, nor is no sin, but excessive, gluttonous, voluptuous cating and drinking is sinful and very displeasing to the Lord. Even so Marrying wives, and giving in marriages was nor is in itself no sin, but to mary contrary to the mind, and Law of God, was then and is now sinful, it was against the mind and law of God when the Godly with the ungodly, the Believing with the Infidel, the Religious with the superstitious shall mary together, this was the Sin of the old world, the Sons of God saw that the Daughters of men were fair, and they took them Wives of all they choose. Gen. 6.2. This grieved the Lord at his Heart, this brought the Flood upon them.  
2. query is when that Law was given?  
I answer, it was given after the fall when there was a Church constituted, before the Sons of God took the Daughters of men and made them their wives, the Law preceded the Fact, the Just God did not make a Law after the dead done to make it sin, but he had made it before, and given it before they lusted after the Beauty of the Daughters of men, and had taken them wives of all that they choose. Which Law they broken in so doing.  
3. query by whom it was given.  
Answer. By the Lord, 'twas his law, he gave it. See my answer to the first query.  
4. query. To whom it was given.  
Answer. To the Sons of God, the Church, who were the true worshippers of God, this Law was given to them, that they must not mary the Daughters of men, viz. the Idolatrous and superstitious.  
5. query. Where it was given.  
Answer. Out of Eden in Asia( most likely where the Church was gathered and then or at that time was.  
6. query. The Penalty for breaking it.  
Answer. The Penalty was Death, they perished all of them by the Flood, saving Eight Souls, 1 Pet. 3.20. These Died not by the Sword of a Magistrate, but by the immediate hand of a grieved God who shut up all Bowels of Compassion, their sin was so great and highly provoking, that he destroyed them, even for this sin of marrying contrary to his Law, and will, among the rest of their sins and wickedness.  
7. query. The Reward promised to those that kept it.  
Answer. Peace here, and Eternal Life hereafter through Christ. He was promised Gen. 3.15. And in him( no doubt) the promise of Life to them that kept the Law of God.  
Thus have I briefly answered his unlearned and impertinent queries.  F. 
I now see there is nothing in his Queries, to what I, and some others thought, and that they tend rather to vain jangling than Godly Edifing. I pray you Brother proceed.  E. 
In the next place, he would have us consider, that the Act of marriage might be lawful, and yet the accident that might follow unlawful. This may be true, but what is this to the purpose, such a thing as this may be, a man that is a member of a Church, believed, and looked upon by all his Brethren to be a faithful Godly person, and he may mary lawfully a Sister that is of the same Faith Pious and Virtuous, and yet it may so happen that he may turn with the Dog to his vomit, and with the Sow, that is washed to the wallowing in the mire. 2 Pet. 2.22. And grow so wicked as to beat her brains out, or cut her Throat, and this accident( if you will call it so) is altogether unlawful, and sinful, and yet notwithstanding it thus proved their act in marrying was lawful. But if a Believer should mary with a woman that is an Unbeliever, that very act in itself is unlawful and is most commonly attended with evil,( I will not call them Accidents) as the only wise God foresay; for they will( saith the Lord) turn away thy Son from following of me &c. See Deut. 7.3.4. And more the Lord saith, they shall be Snares, and Traps unto you, and Scourges in your Sides, and Thorns in your Eyes, &c. Josh. 23.13. The truth of which hath in our days been plainly made manifest, both by practise and experience to the ruin of some Souls, and the woeful condition others have been brought into by their so marrying, as their is many Examples of in our Days, but what then do his four Instances signify, to what do they tend, but only to puzzle the minds and heads of the ignorant and weak, unlawful things may follow a lawful Act; But that lawful thing is no cause of the unlawful Act. Such a thing is possible as is shewed above, what then may men do unlawful acts, because sometimes unlawful things follow lawful acts; no sure no wise man will say so.  
But farther Mr. T. 
Fol. 9.  Saith its hard to conceive that these marriages were sinful, if we consider that God blessed them, with a great Blessing in giving them an honourable Off-spring, Gen. 6.4.  
First, Mr. T. I perceive forgot here what he wrote before Pag. 7 where he calls them Prodigious Births, that here in the 9 Pag. He saith was an honourable Off-spring, thinking thereby to justify the lawfulness of the Sons of God, their taking them wives of the Daughters of Men.  
Secondly, wherein were they honourable, Gen. 6.4. Saith 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 to them, the same became mighty men, which were of old men of renown. Because the Text saith they were men of Renown, therefore I conceive Mr. T. Thinks they were an honourable Off-spring, in which he will see himself mistaken, if he cosult the Dutch Annotations upon that very verse of the 6. of Gen. 4. There words are these.  
In those days there were Giants upon the Earth,[ i.e. Men of taller stature and more strength then others. Num. 13.33. The Hebrew word signifying Giants is deduced from falling, in regard that they being fallen off from God, fell upon Men with all manner of Violence and Tyranny, fearing neither God nor man, whereby every one that saw them grew dejected, his heart and courage failing and falling to the ground, as it were before them. This matter is likewise brought in here, as a particular cause, and provocation of Gods Wrath,] and thereafter also when Gods Sons were gone into the Daughters of men,[ or come, whereby is Modestly and soberly implyed the Cohabitation of Man and Wife,] and had gotten to themselves( Children)[ or then they those women namely did bear( children to their Husbands:] these are the mighty( or powerful) ones, that have been of old, Men of name[ i.e. Famous and Renowned Men, who according to the Worlds Account and judgement had achieved great things. By which Mr. T. may perceive that those men or Giants he saith was an honourable Off-spring, were rather an Abominable Off-spring in the sight of God, for their wickedness, tyranny and violence, they filled the Earth with Violence, Gen. 6.11. And were only famous and renowned men, in the then worlds account and judgement.  
But farther saith Mr. T. if these marriages were sinful, yet not the sin for which God had destroyed the old world.  
First, if Mr. T. meaning is that God did not destroy the old world for that only Sin. I know no man doth affirm he did, but mixed marriages was one sin among the many,( and that not one of the least) for which God did destroy the world as I have shewed above.  
Secondly, And to prove his assertion he brings forth two reasons without any force in them, First, saith he these marriages if unlawful, yet could they not be universal, and God doth not punish severely and universally for the sin of a few as is plain in the case of Sodom. Gen. 18.3.  
If ever there was a man that did affirm that God destroyed the old world only for the sin of mixed marriages, and that God destroyed the world for the sin of his Children in it only, Mr. T. hath almost by his reason confuted him, but there is, nor never was as I know, any man that ever did so affirm, therefore his reason is insignificant and not at all to his purpose. But his second reason is, the sin for which the world was drowned, was not only great but universal, Mr. T. saith true in this, it was so, but withall Mr. T. must know that though they had sinned universally, that Gods Children had sinned particularly, and that grieved the Lord at his Heart, and also that they sinned in that particular thing too, in taking wives of the Daughters of men, then God repents he had made man, when his sons sinned, and resolves unalterably to destroy man and beast, the sin of his own went near his Heart, the Lord doth not find Ten Righteous in the world, none but Noe and his Family, Eight Souls saved by water, the sin of mixed marriages then you see was a particular and special cause of Gods wrath  
And then lastly Mr. T. makes a flourish, though all we say be true saith he, yet there is no Rule to excommunicate members for it, God is Judge and Executioner, and you must have a Precept, and Precept you have none.  
To which I say that there was none to execute judgement except they should one wicked man punish another. For there was not a Righteous man left but Noah, they were all corrupted. Therefore God must punish them himself, Noah was not able. But whether we have a Precept or no to excommunicate such as sin in marrying, we shall speak to in its place and notwithstanding his Confidence, prove there is precept for the same.  F. 
You have well satisfied me in this thing about the Sons of God, in, who they were, that their sin was great in marrying the Daughters of men, that it was a cause of the drowning of the world, &c. Now I pray, let me hear your judgement in the rest, and I hope I shall receive full satisfaction thereby.  E. 
Yea I shall examine Mr Tories Book farther. 
Fol. 10.  And I find that Mr. T. having stated a question after his own mind, explains his meaning, saying by Institutions he means under the law, Circumcision, and the Passover, &c.  
And under the Gospel he means Baptism, breaking of Bread, and laying on of hands, but as Mr. D. saith, why not Repentance and Faith, doth he not hold them to be institutions, God positively commands all men every where to repent, Acts 17.30. Well but take him as he hath writ, see what it will amount to, persons differing about Baptism may mary, he holds, viz. They that were sprinkled being Babes, which is no Baptism, and the persons so sprinkled who are for all that, still unbaptized persons, yet is it lawful for those that are baptized according to the will of Christ and the truth of the Gospel, to mary with them that never were baptized as he holds.  
So touching the Lords Supper, those that differ about that Institution he will say, may lawfully mary; the Papists, they hold the bread is transubstantiated, being Consecrated by the Priest, and is the very real Body or Flesh of Christ, therefore is the bread by the Papists believed to be a God, or the second Person in the Trinity, and they own it to be their God and Saviour, and accordingly they reverence and worship the Host, what is this but Idolatry, and yet Mr. T. holds, that a true Christian that holds and practiseth that sacred Institution of the Lords Supper in the purity of it may mary with a papist,( or else he saith nothing) that is an Idolater, and then if so pray why not with one that makes him a God of Wood, ston, Gold or Silver, or that worshippeth the host of Heaven, even a Pagan, an Infidel or any. so that in very dead it will amount to what Mr. den saith in the question stated by him in the 15 page. of his Book. ( viz) Whether a contract of marriage, made between two persons of different persuasions in all matters of Religion, be lawful or unlawful.  
Mr. T. must of necessity take the affirmative of this as well as his own, which tho more darkly laid down, yet have I given you the truth of his judgement. Which he must be forced to own, or else give a more plain and candid explanation of his own mind.  F. 
You have well opened his question, I see he hath a large latitude the truth is, I see more and more of his subtlety, but pray go on.  E. 
I do not see but that Mr. den hath answered Mr. T. fully enough, about his answering the care, the virtuous had to avoid the marrying of their Children to the People of the Land, what Mr. T. saith in that, is not worth the taking notice of more than Mr. D. hath already done, indeed that which is most worthy the noting and answering is his bold and positive affirming that, what they did to wit, Abraham for his Son Isaac, and Isaac for his Son Jacob. In their care to provide wives for them was not upon a Religious Account, but sure I am saith Mr. T. 
Fol. 10.  not upon the account of Religion, and although Mr. D. hath taken the pains to answer him more at large, yet in few words let me tell you it is plain, and undeniable, that their care to mary their Chiidren was upon a religious account, by the words of Rebecca to Jsaac, I am( saith she) weary of my Life, because of the Daughters of heath, if Jacob take a wife of the Daughters of heath, such as these which are of the Daughters of the Land, what good shall my Life do me. Gen. 27.46. Was not this a Religious Care in Rebecca, upon what account should she thus speak but on a religious one, it is more then probable that Jacob might find among the daughters of heath as beautiful, as wealthy, yea in all worldly respects as good accommodations among the daughters of heath as in the Family of Laban, being wealthy people, having possessions, able to give to Abraham a burying place for his dead, nor were they such Enemies to Abraham that they did not think him fit to live, for they were ready and willing to give him freely a burying place for his dead, a great kindness, in which much love they shewed to Abraham a stranger amongst them, though Abraham would and did purchase it with his money, this was in Hebron in the Land of Canaan Gen. 23. red the whole Chapter. They were Canaanites, irreligious or idolaters, and that is the cause of Rebecca's care lest her Son should join in affinity with Idolaters, yea farther, Esau though he had sold his Birth-right, and had lost his Fathers blessing, yet his marrying of Judith the Daughter of Beezi the Hittite, and Bashemath the Daughter of Elon the Hittite was a grief of mind unto Isaac and Rebecca, Gen. 26.34, 25.  
Any worldly disadvantage that Esau had in his taking these women to wife, could not be the cause of Isaac's and Rebecca's grief, for he waxed Rich upon it, as appears Gen. 33.9. Godly Parents may grieve for the Poverty of their Children, for their ill fortunes in the world, but Isaac and Rebecca had no cause to grieve for Esau in that respect, that which is the greatest cause of grief to Godly Parents, is to see their children stubornly rebel against God and them, then will they grieve for their Souls, when they miscarry in the best things, when they sin against God, and cast off True Religion, this is cause of grief, when they have no regard to Gods Law, this caused Isaac, and Rebecca to grieve for Esau, he married sinfully and irreligioufly.  F. 
The thing is plain enough, that upon the account of Rely. ligion the patriarches care was to choose wifes for their Sons, I see it is not good to be so confident as Mr. T. is in this matter. But pray speak to the second, to wit the command of God.  E. 
I shall, but it would make one almost blushy to think what a shane it is to Religion for a man to say that cautions are no commands at all in a proper sense, but that they relate to prudent, and politic Government. Where he puts no difference between one caution and another: but generally hints, that causions are no commands at all; &c. I have indeed heard some say( and have heard of more) Atheists, and Ranters that have said the Scripture was politicly writ by crafty men,( who would make themselves great) to keep the people in subjection to them, but for a man professing Religion, to say that which is so like to those wicked men, may cause shane and sorrow of heart.  
But Secondly, are not cautions commands, though they do sound in words something different from such Phrases as these, thou shalt do no Murder, and negatively thus, Thou shalt not steal. &c. What shall we make of that in Josh. 23.11. Take good heed therefore unto yourselves that you love the Lord your God. doth this caution relate only to prudent and politic government, or is it not as truly, and in its proper sense a command, as what Christ saith, thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy Heart, this is the first and great Commandment. Mat. 22.37, 38. Surely to love the Lord is our great duty, and the duty enforced as powerfully in cautional terms, when so given, take heed that you love, &c. As when in positive expressions, thou shalt love, &c. And the caution equivalent with the positive command, the Lord had before time positively commanded Israel to love him, then can Joshuahs caution[ take heed] be( though not anew) yet the same command brought afresh to their minds, what God before had positively commanded, neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy Daughters thou shalt not give unto his Son, nor his Daughters shalt thou take unto thy Son, Deut. 7.3. Here the Lord is positive, neither shalt thou make marriages with them; &c. Again are not cautions commands, what shall we make of this then, take heed Brethren lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the Living God. Heb. 3.12. See Mat. 24.4. Was this caution given by the Spirit of God, and doth it relate only to prudent and politic government, and is it no evil in itself, nor no breach of a positive command for Believers to be heedless, and negligent in their christian duties, and so suffer an evil heart of unbelief to be in them, and thereby to depart from the living God, is unbelief no sin, and to depart from the living God no sin, no breach of Gods Law? Be astonished Q ye Heavens at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate saith the Lord, for my People have committed two evils, they have forsaken me the Fountain of living waters, and hewed them out Cisterns, broken Cisterns that will hold no water. Jer. 2.12, 13. To depart from God is an astonishing sin, the sin of sins, the most grievous God provoking Soul damning sin, and yet prohibited, or forbid no otherwise then with a take heed Brethren, &c. in Heb. 3.12.  
Thirdly, You see that the Lord is positive, thou shalt not make marriages with them, thy Daughter shalt( note) thou not give unto his Son, nor take his Daughter unto thy son. Deut. 7.3. As positive in this, as in Exod. 20. ver. 7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. verse 13.14. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit Adultery. &c.  
Therefore that which you ought to take notice of is, that though cautional prohibitions, seem not to carry the same Authority with them, in phrase, or manner of speaking, as that which is given in positive terms doth, yet they have the same authority and enforce the Duty equally with positives, because they are grounded upon positive laws, as for Example, take good heed therefore unto yourselves that you love the Lord your God, Jos. 23.11. This caution is grounded upon a Commandment, or positive law; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy Mind, this is the First and great Commandment saith our Saviour. Mat. 22.37, 38.  
Than no man that is in his right mind, and of a willing heart to obey the Lord, will thus shuffle and say, that cautions are no commands at all, and to insinuate they do not relate to piety and devotion, doth it not relate to piety and devotion, that we should love the Lord our God, and that we should take heed lest their be an evil heart of unbelief in us, in departing from the living God, sure it doth in the highest degree, even so are cautions of like authority in this thing now under debate; as that in Josh. take good heed unto yourselves, that you love the Lord your God, else if you in any wise go back, and cleave to the Remnant of these Nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty, that the Lord your God will no more drive out any of these Nations from before you; but they shall be Snares and Traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and Thorns in your Eyes, until you perish from off this good Land, which the Lord your God hath given you. Josh. 23.11, 12, 13. This is only a caution, will Mr. T. say, and cautions if rightly considered, are no commands at all in a proper sense, but considering that Joshuahs caution is grounded upon a positive law or command of God, thou shalt not make marriages with them, thy Daughter thou shalt not give to his Son, nor his Daughter shalt thou take to thy Son, Deut. 7.3. It hath the like preceptive authority, as where mixed marriages is in positive terms forbidden or prohibited.  
Fourthly, But Mr. T. saith they relate only to prudent and politic Government, as may appear from the sense of the words, which adviseth( saith he) to forbear these marriages not as God enjoins other things, because they were Abominations, Levit. 18.22. ver. 21. Chap. 20.1.2, 3, 4, 5.6. Well what have we here, because they were abominations, implying that mixed marriages is no Abomination.  
Suppose mixed marriages be no where said to be an abomination, doth it follow therefore that it is no sin, or that cautions prohibiting such marriages, do relate to no more than prudent and politic Government.  
Pray where is Theft or Stealing said to be an abomination, yet I hope Mr. T. will not say that stealing was forbid only, relating to prudent and politic government, and that it is no breach of Gods law, and consequently no sin to steal, I am sure Mr. T. will not say so; though I will not say but all Gods laws are prudential. God in his infinite wisdom made this Law,( as also all other) that his people should not join in affinity with the Nations.  
Mr. T. further adds, neither as God forbids killing and stealing, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, I have shewed above that God hath forbid mixed marriages as he forbids killing, and stealing, Thou shalt not make marriages with them, thy Daughter shalt thou not give unto his Son, nor take his Daughter unto thy Son. Thus you see God forbids the one, as he sorbids the other: But Mr. T. forms you a reason for it, wherein he roundly begs the question, because killing and stealing are evil in their own nature, but God( saith he) forbids these marriages as a thing that was not in itself evil, but might tend to evil, or open a door to evil.  
I again affirm that God doth positively forbid mixed marriages, thou shalt not make marriages with them; and to be disobedient to such a law so positive is in itself evil, and it is true it doth also tend, and open a Door to more evil, as going a whoring after other Gods, so doth stealing tend to, and openeth a door to more evil, as lying, the thief will lye and saith he hath it not, yea and to murder as oft experience proves, and then we may say, if what Mr. T. saith be true, that stealing in itself is no evil, a man that robs his neighbour doth no evil, commits no sin, provided he do confess, and do not lie, in denying he stolen, and provided when he breaks into his neighbours house, or robs on the High-way, he doth not kill them, nor any of them he robs, this is as concluding as what Mr. T. saith in his reason, and then farther if we reason this as Mr. T. doth the other, how will it look in the sight of all sober moral men, 
Fol. 14.  neither shalt thou steal, and why, not because it is a sin and an abomination, but because it may draw away thy Heart to commit murder, and to lie, it may be a Temptation to thee to lie and kill, yea and many more evils besides, know for a certain it will be a Snare to thee not a sin, not an immorality in thee, but a Snare to thee, thy heart may be drawn away by it, to murder or commit some other abominable sin, which stealing tends, and opens a door to. Therefore it is good thou shouldst not steal, though no sin in itself, but may tend to evil, or to the opening a Door to Evil. Such Reasoning as this is voided of Reason, if not sinful arguing, and yet thus doth Mr. T. argue in the case of Mixt-Marriages.  
We have a saying one evil seldom goes alone, it hath more attending it, as Drunkenness, what varieties of evils doth that tend and open a Door to? as Lying, Swearing, Cursing, Damning, Blaspheming, Adultery, Murder, abuse of Wife, and Children, neglect of providing for them, nay impoverishing of them, which is to deny the Faith, and to be worse then an Infidel. Shall we say then, that Drunkenness is no Evil in itself, if the Drunkard keep his heart with God,( as some Drunkards will say they do) and commit none of these above mentioned sins, God forbid, Drunkenness is in itself although no other sin should attend it, a very great sin, one of the sins of the old world. Luke 17.27. As was mixed Marriages, as I have above proved.  
But Mr. T. Again saith, 
Fol. 14.  that the matter contained in these Texts( prohibiting Mixt-Marriages) is no other but a part of the politic Law, given to Israel, which altered and became stronger or weaker by Occasion, and Circumstance, of which kind of Laws Israel had many.  
I shall only instance in two, saith Mr. T. The first is Deut: 20.19. When thou shalt besiege a City a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the Trees thereof by forcing an Ax against it.  
And why( saith Mr. T.) not because the thing was sinful, but because thou mayest eat of them.  
Doth he not worthily conclude for negatively, not because it is sinful, but Affirmatively, because thou mayest eat of them, then it seems if Mr. Tory be right, God may command and Israel not obey, and it will be no sin: if Mr. T. had lived at that time, he would have taught Disobedience enough to Israel: was Sauls sparing the best of the Sheep, when God commanded him to slay them, 1 Sam. 15.9. Such a sin, heightened to such a degree of greatness, and abomination, that God rejected him from being King over Israel.( Notwithstanding Sauls excuse) by Samuel as you may see, ver. 22.23. Behold( saith Samuel) to obey is better then Sacrifice, and to harken then the Fat of Rams, for Rebellion( saith he is as the Sin of Witch-Craft, and Stubornness is as Iniquity, and Idolatry, because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being King. And is it no sin to cut down those Trees, when God had commanded them not to cut them down, see I pray you how the Lord doubles this command; And thou shalt not cut them down, for the three of the Field is mans Life, who seeth not that hath any sight, that to disobey God in cutting down these Trees is immoral, and a breach of that Law, that saith thou shalt not Kill, for if he that lusteth after a Woman doth commit Adultery with her in his Heart, then for a Man to conceive evil, and to have a malicious intent to take away the Life of his Neighbour, or Brother, is sin, and the Breach of a Moral Law, although he never actually slay him, much more then would it tend to Murder, and be a Breach of that Law which saith thou shalt not Kill, for the Israeliter to cut down the Trees of the Field under that Circumstance, namely when they had Besieged a City; because the Trees of the Field is mans life, to cut them down then in a siege, were to take away and destroy that which was to support mans life: but saith Mr. T. not that it was sinful to cut them down, pray is it not equally a sin to destroy that which God commands to be spared, as it is to spare that which God commanded should be destroyed, as Saul did to his ruin. But I would know of Mr. T. when, and where God  told him that Mixt-Marriages in itself is not sinful, and when he  told him that to cut the Trees that God commanded Israel they should not cut down, was not sinful. Sure Mr. T. is become strangely presumptuous, this is almost to become a Competitor with God, if not to control, and contradict him. This may suffice for the other Text, Deut. 22.8. What I have already said may well serve the rational, for an answer to both.  
But Mr. T. will second it with this consideration, they were as well cautioned from making any other Covenant with them, 
Fol. 15.  as the Covenant of Marriage, it is granted, but what of that, doth it prove that those Laws were only politic, and the breach of those laws not sinful, would it not have been a sin, if Israel had made any Covenant with them, or had spared any alive, that God commanded them to destroy, as Saul did the Sheep, and Agag. What is this to the purpose? Mr. T. should prove that the Law against Mixt-Marriages is only politic, and that it is no sin to break them, for that is his work here, and nothing else in this place.  
But Thirdly,( he saith) the People are mistaken, 
Fol. 15.  as well as the thing, in concluding, that Israel was forbid to mary with all Nations in the World; the mistake it seems is, that God did only forbid Marriages with the Seven Nations, and not with all the Nations of the World. Deut. 7.1.2, 3. And the Seven Nations are, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Ammorites, and the Cannanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, Seven Nations greater, and mightier then thou  
That the Children of Israel were forbidden to mary with these Seven Nations is true, but that they were not forbidden to mary with other Nations is also untrue; for we find Ezra 9.1. That the People sinned in making Marriages, with the Ammonites, the Moabites, and the Egyptians, which three Nations were not of the Seven, and these Three God did not command Israel to destroy, as he did the Seven, for as Mr. T. Confesseth an Ammonite and Moabite shall, or may enter into the House of the Lord in the Tenth Generation, Deut. 23.3. And there was some reason for it, because Ammon and Moab were the Sons of Lot, incestiously begotten by Lot, upon his own Daughters; Gen. 19.36, 37, 38. They were somewhat related to Israel for Lot was Harams Son, who was the Brother of Abraham, Gen. 11.27. Yet for all that Israel must not join assinity with Ammon nor Moab, as you see Ezra 9.1. So Israel was commanded not to abhor an Edomite, the Reason is, for he is thy Brother, nor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his Land; Deut. 23.7. Yet Israel must not make Marriages with them as appears, not only from what is said in Ezra, but also in 1 King. 11.12 But King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the Daughters of pharaoh, Women of the Moabites, Ammenites,( which two last came of Lots sons) Edomites,( which came of Esau, Jacobs Brother) Zidonians and Egyptians, note here is expressed Five Nations more then the Seven before mentioned, and therefore I think the mistake is in Mr. T.; for none of these Five Nations the Children of Israel were allowed to mary with, no more than the seven they were commanded to destroy, for saith the Text of these Nations, concerning which the Lord said unto the Children of Israel, ye shall not go in unto them, neither shall they come in unto you, for surely they will turn away your hearts after their Gods. Solomon clavae to those in Love, the taking of these to wife was a Trespass, see Ezra. 9.4. A forsaking Gods Commandments, ver. 10.11, 12.14. See Neh. 13.23.24, 25.26, 27. verses.  
Pray hear what Mr. Answorth saith of making Marriages, or joining in affinity, by way of Marriage, this concerned not the Seven Nations only, but all the Heathens; Ezra 9.1, 2. The Hebrews say an Israelite that lieth with an Heathen Woman of any other Nation, by way of Marriages, or an Israelite that so lieth with an Heathen Man, they are to be beaten by the Law; whether it be of the Seven Nations, or any other People, it is within this prohibition, and so it is expounded by Ezra. Mr. Answorth in these words agrees you see with us, saying also they that sinned in taking strange Wives were to be beaten by the Law, and it is probable that it was so among the Jews, for it is said that Nehemiah smote some of them, it comes in thus, in those days also saw I Jews that had Married Wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab, pray note by the way that Ashdod was a City, and Province of the philistines, and when the philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Eben-Ezer unto Ashdod, i.e. the City, 1 Sam. 5.1. then the Philistians brought the ark of God into the House of Dagon, but Dagon fell before the ark, therefore neither the Priests of Dagon, nor any that came into Dagons House tread on the Threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day: verse 2.3, 4, 5. Now you are to note that the Philistians were not of the Seven Nations that God commanded the Israelites to destroy, yet to mary Wives of Ashdod who were Philistians was a sin, as farther appears from the words of Nehemiah, and therefore I proceed; and their Children spake half in the Speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews Language, but according to the Language of each people. And I( saith Nehemiah) contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them.( Note that) and plucked of their Hair, and made them swear by God, saying ye shall not give your Daughters unto their Sons, nor take their Daughters unto your Sons, or for yourselves. Nehem. 13.23, 24, 25. By all which it worldly appears, that the Israelites were not to make Marriages with the Seven Nations only, but were forbid the same with all other Nations besides; although Israel was commanded not to abhor some other Nations, nor to destroy them for the reasons the Lord himself gives, yet it is plain and undeniable that it was their sin to make Marriages with them, which shows it to be upon a Religious Account they were forbidden the same.  
But yet Mr. T. hath a Fourth, wherein he saith, there was great Reason why the Jews should make no Covenant with those people of the Seven Nations, 
F. 16.  and that out of state policy as well as Religion, and gives you four of them, but to what purpose, he blots paper, and troubleth his Reader with them, I do not understand, for who doth he think, will affirm that the only Wise God commanded any thing of his People, but there was great Reason for his so commanding them, but I cannot pass it by, but must take notice that Mr. T. is constrained here to confess, that those great reasons he mentions taketh not only state policy in, but Religion also, and so he likewise concludes his Fourth Reason, but what if one should grant for arguments sake that there was State Policy in the Case; and his reason good and authentic he gives for it, may not an ill minded man, such as the Ranters, that hold nothing in itself is sinful, say the same, and give you reasons for it, of all Moral Precepts, not to enlarge, Let me give you among many one instance; the Law saith thou shalt not kill,( nor) thou shalt not steal, these commands may one say were made by Moses, out of state policy for this reason, men would have slain one another, had they not been restrained by a Law, and so there might a been a depopulating, as fast as their was a multiplying or increasing, and so the design of God frustrated, which was to make of Abraham a great Nation, for number as the Sand of the Sea which could not be numbered, and by that means they would be disabled, and made uncapable to overcome, and subdue their Enemies; and so the promise made of no effect, which the Lord made to Abraham; Gen. 17.8. And I will give unto thee, and thy Seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a Stranger, all the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession; and I will be their God, Then may it as fairly be concluded, that moral Laws were but given out of state Policy, and that it is not in itself sinful to Kill, nor to steal, as the Ranters will say; though Mr. T. will not so say in this case of Killing and Stealing, yet he doth so say in the case of Marriage. Therefore by this is shown the weakness and impertinency of Mr. Ts. reasoning, being nothing to the thing in hand.  
But yet I must take some notice of his fifth Reason, wherein he saith we are mistaken in the extent of the Word; for I will prove saith he, that the Jews might mary with such people of other Nations, as were uncircumcised, his Reason is the words of the prohibition( or caution) expressing no other people then the Seven Nations, and they are expressly name, as have been shewed already. Deut. 7.1.2.3. And I have shewed above, that though no more be expressed by name, Deut. 7.1.2, 3. Yet more are expressed by name in Ezra 9.1. and Neh. 13.23. 1 Kings 11.1. And these Nations also Israel sinned in making Marriages with, as all those places show, and these Nations by name were the Moabites, and Ammonites, the Edomites and Zidonians, 1 King. 11.1. and the Egyptians Ezra 9.1. and the Philistians, Neho. 13.23. Nations in number six, besides the Seven Nations Israel was commanded to destroy, that Israel was not to join in affinity with.  
And he saith it appears from the different respect they were to bear to these People, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomite, and Egyptian.  
I have shewed without all peradventure, that the Children of Israel were not to mary with these Nations, but were, it's true, not to destroy them but to give them respect for the Reason that God gives Israel, thou shalt not abhor an Edomite because he is thy Brother, thou shalt not ahhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a Stranger in his Land. Deut. 23.7. But by this it doth not appear that the Jews might make Marriages with these Nations, but the contrary doth plainly, that they might not mary with them, as hath been shewed, but this doth plainly appear from the respect that God commands Israel to bear them, that they were chiefly( if not only) commanded not to make Marriages with them, upon a religious account, because they were Idolaters, and uncircumcised.  
Again he saith it appears from the many Marriages that were made with the uncircumcised, and some of them by men most eminent in the Church of the Jews; 
Fol. 18.  and he begins first with Sheshan, now Sheshan had no Sons, but Daughters; and Sheshan had a Servant an Egyptian whose name was Jarha, and Sheshan gave his Daughter to Jarha his Servant to Wife, and she bare him Attai. 1 Chron. 2.34, 36. Mr. T. would make this place if he could to prove that Israel made Marriages with the uncircumcised, first Jarha though an Egyptian, was Sheshans Servant, and the Servants of the Jews were circumcised, for so God commanded Abraham, Gen. 17.12, 13. See Exod. 12, 44. And therefore Sheshan might lawfully mary his Daughter to Jarha. Secondly, Jarha's Seed is reckoned among the rest in Genalogie, which would not have been, had not Jarha been proselited to the Jews Religion.  
His Second instance is Solomons taking to Wife Pharaohs Daughter, doth this prove or disprove what he saith, sure I am Solomon sinned in his taking her to Wife, did not Solomon King of Israel sin by these things, Neh. 13.26. But King Solomon loved strange Women, together with the Daughters of pharaoh, &c. Of these Nations concerning which, the Lord said unto the Children of Israel, ye shall not go into them, neither shall they come in unto you, for surely they will turn away your Heart after their Gods: Solomon clavae unto these in Love. 1 Kings 11.12. This you see then is far from proving what Mr. T. would have it, and what he brings it for, notwithstanding his Flourishing Paraphrase, his third example is David and Moses, as to David his Wife, Maacah Daughter to Talmai King of Geshur. 2 Sam. 3.3. She might be a stranger proselyte, and so David might lawfully mary her, though the Scripture be silent in it, for there was one law for Israel, and the stranger that was proselited, Exod. 12.48.49. Otherwise David did Evil, though the Scripture passeth it by in silence, and as for Moses his Two Wives they might also be proselited according to the Law, else it were strange that a Lawgiver should in his own person be the same Law breaker, and consider too how much he reproved it in others, Numb. 25. And though God doth justify Moses against Aaron, and miriae, yet it doth not appear that he justifies in him, his Marrying with the Ethiopian Woman for the Lord spake not a word of that, as Mr. den hath said, and as I further say God reproves Aaron, and miriae for villifyng and speaking irrevently to Moses, as he was the Minister of God, and in such an honourable Office as to be the Mouth of God, to all the Lords People, and to receive Laws from the Mouth of God, and deliver them to Israel. This somewhat reflected upon the Lord himself, and therefore his Anger was kindled against them, Numb. 12.9. And in this the Lord justifies Moses, saying my servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine House. ver. 7. and if so Moses did not mary an Ethyopian Woman, that was no proselyte, for that had been unfaithfulness in the House of God, and of an evil example to Israel, because Israel had received from the Mouth of Moses this Law; Thou shalt not make Marriages with them: And whereas Mr. T. saith that Zipporah the Daughter of Revel the Priest of Midian; Exod. 2.19. to the 23. Was far from a proselyte, when she violently opposed the circunctsing of her Son, Exod. 4.25, 26. He may for all that be mistaken, a good Christian Woman might( being a tender Mother) be troubled and break out into passionate expressions, unbecoming her, to see her Child bleed, and smart, especially circumcision being but a new thing to her, yet she so far obeied Moses as to circumcise her Son, with her own hands, as you may see Exod. 4.25. Which was a sign she was a Prosylite, and a woman that feared the God of Israel, an Idolatrous woman would never a done so, nor would Moses a suffered her to have circumcised his Son, if she had been an Idolater and no prosylite.  
Mr. T. hath a fourth Reason to prove, that the Jews might mary with other People( besides the Seven Nations) that are uncircumcised, the Jews saith he were allowed to mary with the Edomites and Egyptians, for Proof he brings Deut. 23.7, 8. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, because he is thy Brother, thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a Stranger in his Land: the Children begotten of them, shall enter into the Congregation in their Third Generation.  
A notable proof, because they must not abhor them, therefore they may mary with them. I have shewed above that it was sinful for the Jews to mary with Edomites and Egyptians, See Ezra 9.1. 1 King. 11.1. And what need I say it over again, and for their Children entering into the Congregation in their third Generation, is too light to prove mixt-marriages lawful; for Bastards may come into the Congregation in their Tenth Generation, Deut. 23.2. No sober man will say it is therefore lawful to have Children of Fornication; which if Mr. T. Reasons right we may. But his fift and last reason he thinks will hit the Nail on the Head, which is they might mary with all such as they had conquered,( not with any of the Seven Nations, I hope) and if so saith he, then no doubt with all such they were at Peace with, that they might mary with the Captives; see the express word. Deut. 21.10.11.12.13.  
But is Mr. T. sure they must not be proselited first, for that is the Question, else they have here a liberty given to violate Gods Law; but I pray what do these ceremonies used signify, what are they for, but to prosylite her, to wit the Captive maid, and cause her to forsake her Idolatry, and to embrace the fear and true service of God, before he may take her to his wife, this was the end of her shaving her Head, her pairing her Nails, her casting away her Heathenish Garments, and the like. Deut. 21.12, 13. See the Dutch Annotations on this place. Thou shalt bring her into thine House,[ Heb. into the midst of thine house,] and she shall shave her Head, and pair her Nails, 
See the Dutch Annotations on Deut. 21. ver. 12.  make her Nails, that's fit, fashion, prepare them, all these ceremonies mentioned in this and the following verse, as shaving the Head, paring or cleansing the Nails, putting off her former Heathenish Garments, bewailing her Parents &c. Were a Token of putting off and forsaking the former Heathenish Idolatrous being, and of embracing the True Religion, and of being incorporated, or embodied into the People of God. Compare Psal. 45.11. This you see then it is not my opinion alone, but of a whole Synod of learned men, both in Holland, and many of the most and best approved Orthodox Men( at that time) in England, then may Mr. T. be, nay no doubt is under a mistake in his reasoning, whereby he so confidently thinks to prove, nay confidently saith, I will prove that the Jews might mary with such People of other Nations as are uncircumcised, are all of them invalid, and of no Force, but rather falsely suggested in his own mind without any scriptural warranty.  
F. You have as to Mr. T's Old Testament proofs, well satisfied me, now Brother I pray proceed to his New Testament Proofs.  
E. I shall in the fear of God, as he shall enable me, answer him therein also, and I pray God it may be to your satisfaction and all others, and I shall take them in order as they are laid down by him.  
First, then Mr. T. saith to that, 1 Cor. 6.18. it's to be observed that the Apostle speaks not one Word of Marriages. And I rather say( in that place) he speaks of nothing else but Marriages, what means this word else, for two( saith he) shall be one Flesh, 1 Cor. 6.16. Who doth these words refer to ( saith he) but to the Lord, Gen. 2.24. And they shall be one Flesh, i.e. a man and his wife shall be one Flesh.  
Secondly, where doth( he) namely the Lord, and Lawgiver, say by such as commit common Fornication, or uncleanness, ( viz.) when a man shall lye with a woman or a maid that is not his Wife; For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his Wife, and they twain shall be one Flesh, wherefore they are no more twain, but one Flesh, Mat. 19.56. See Mark 10.7.8. the Lord no where ever said, that such shall be one Flesh, that commit such uncleanness, the committing of uncleanness doth not make any two one Flesh, it's only said of those who are man and wife, therefore the Apostle speaks of marriage in this place, it being the scope of the Apostle. Let Mr. T. take his observation again, and he will find, and see, it is no other thing, a man cannot be one Body with a Harlot, when he commits Folly and Uncleanness with her, there is no sinful act will make them twain one Flesh, it's Matrimony only that makes them one Body, and so if a man mary a Harlot he then indeed becomes one Body with her, and not else.  
Thirdly, this premised, see the Text, 1 Cor. 6.15. Know ye not that your Bodies are the Members of Christ, shall I then take the Members of Christ, and make them the members of an Harlot, God forbid. The Members of Christ who are they; those that are in Christ by Faith, regenerated, born again, they are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bone. Eph. 5.30. And who in a Scriptural sense, are Harlots, not only such as prostrate their Bodies to men, but such( and they the Apostle means in this place) as are Idolaters, superstitious, such as worship the true God, in a false manner, in this sense is mystery Babylon, said to be the Mother of Harlots, Revel. 17.5. Mystery babylon the great, the mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. They are her Children, being mystery Babilons Members, and those Harlots are said to be Fornicators, Revel. 18.3. And in that sense Harlots, as in the other sense the faithful are said to be Flesh of Christs Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, being of that one body, of which Christ is the Head, Eph. 4.15.16 Col. 1.24. Then saith the Holy Apostle, what know ye not that he( i.e. he that is a Member of Christ which is joined to a Harlot,( that is a Daughter of the Great Whore, Revel. 17.1.) So the wicked are said to be Sons of the Sorceress, the Seed of the Adulterer, and the Whore, Isa. 57.3.) is one Body, for two saith he shall be one Flesh, i.e. man and wife, which God forbid, that any member of Christ should make one Flesh with an Idolater; what mary with a Harlot, one of the Daughters of the great Whore, this were sinful, contrary to Gods Mind and Law, contrary to holiness, and would defile that member of Christ, that should so do,( and therefore God forbid) which is the Temple of God, for then him shall God destroy: for the Temple of God is Holy, which Temple ye are, 1 Cor 6.19. therefore saith the Apostle, flee Fornication, every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth Fornication sinneth against his own Body, for a Member of Christ then, to mary a Harlot, in the sense above is to commit Fornication, which the Apostle commands them to flee, ver. 18. For this sin is not with, out the body, it reacheth within, where the Holy Ghost dwelleth, and is a sin against, and which defileth, the Body, which is the Temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own, ver. 19. The reason is, for you are bought with a Price, therefore glorify God in your Body, and in your Spirit, which are Gods, ver. 20. Our Bodies must be offered to God, Holy and acceptable which is our Reasonable service, Rom. 12.1. Our bodies are the Lords, and with them we must glorify him, they are his Temple, and must not be defiled upon pain of Destruction, 1 Cor. 3.17. Which marrying with a Harlot, that is the Seed of the Great Whore doth, which were so to mary, Fornication and defiling, and therefore flee Fornication saith the Apostle.  
Fourthly, what Mr. Tory saith farther is but frivelous, as for him to say, we know that the false Church is sometimes called an Harlot, that may be true, yea and the members of the false Church are called Harlots also; for she is the Mother of Harlots, Revel. 17.5. they i.e. her Children she brings forth are Harlots, the Seed of the Whore. Isa. 57.3. and( saith he) Idolatry is called Fornication, it's true, yea and so are they that are Idolaters called Fornicators, Revel. 18.3. but this( saith he) is no way applied to single persons, for they are no Harlots( saith he) as they are single Persons, Mr. T. may with as good reason say, that they are no Idolaters, as they are single persons, and if he do not say that, and prove it also he saith( in this) nothing to the purpose, and his wife may be an honest woman and not accused with incontinency, and yet if she be of the Seed of the mother of Harlots, that is a member of the false Church, she then in the sense of the Apostle 1 Cor. 6.15. is an Harlot, and he in marrying her and living with her as her Husband, is a Fornicator,( in the sense of the Apostle in the same place, flee Fornication) as will be farther shown hereafter; and as little to the purpose is it for him to say, nor are she and I made one Spirit by the act of Marriage. No so I think, if it were so the sore would be healed, the want of that oneness in the Spirit is the evil, the difference in worship, and institutions about it makes it sinful marriage. And as to what he lastly saith, I say that this Text is not to be understood in a common sense, but in the sense I have above shewed it is to be understood.  F. 
This Text 1 Cor. 6. you have given me satisfaction about, pray go on to Rev. 2.14.  E. 
Rev. 2.14. Is thus. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast them there that hold the Doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the Children of Israel, to eat things Sacrificed to Idols, and to commit Fornication. Now Mr. T. saith that there was some in the Church of Pergamos, who held the Doctrine of Balaam is true, but that saith he Marriages with persons differing in Religion, was that Doctrine or Fornication, is yet to prove, and he supposing that the holy Scripture no where doth decide the controversy, and that he might discourage any Antagonist from searching it out, he saith, whatsoever Josephus saith that Israel married the Moabitish women is little to the purpose, if it be to the purpose at all, though but little it is well, a little is better than nothing, little I am sure it is to his purpose, and so is what he saith Mr. Phillips saith that whoredom mentioned in the 25. of Numbers, and that in the Rev. 2.14. Called Fornication is all one. But for their sakes that have not Josephus to red, and the truth sake I shall insert here, what Josephus saith upon Num. 25. only by the way, I note that Mr. T. is so modest as not to say any thing to the disrepute of Josephus, then may Josephus be for ought I believe, Mr. T. can say to the contrary as credible an Author as he, or any man for him will find, to disprove that little he saith, and therefore take Josephus as followeth. Balaam spake thus to Balac, since it is your desire O King, and you Princes of Midian, that I gratify you, although it be against the will of God, you shall hear all that I can say. Hope not that any thing can extinguish the race of the Hebrews, either by War, or Pestilence, or Famine, or any other chance; for God hath care to preserve that Nation from all evil, so that no mischief can befall them, whereby the whole multitude can be extinguished, though they may come into some Affliction for a time, yet they will afterwards flourish more then they did before; being by such chastisement rendered more wise, but if you desire to obtain some sort of victory over them by this my 
Balaams advice to Balaac called Rev. 2.14. Balaams Doctrine.  council you shall bring your wishes to effect, sand to their Camp the fairest of your Daughters, as trimly decked and beautified as is possible, who by their Beauty may conquer, and by their Love 'allure their Hearts, let these wander about and offer themselves to the conversation of the youngest and bravest amongst them: and as soon as they see them Enamoured, let them pretend to go away, and being desired to stay, let them not yield, except they will be persuaded to forsake their Country Laws, and the service of God from whom they received them, and to adore the Gods of the Midiannites and Moabites, for by this means they shall incense Gods wrath against themselves, Balaam having given this advice he departed.  
Now when the Midiannites ( according as they were counseled) sent out their Daughters, the younger sort of the Hebrews became entangled with their Beauty, and conversing with them, desired them not to deny them the pleasure and enjoyment of their Beauty, the young women seeing them enamoured made semblance of a desire to leave them, and depart. Whereupon the young men earnestly entreated them to tarry, 
The Hebrews promise to mary them and swear they would love them as their wives.  and promised to mary them, swearing they would not only love them as their Wives, but render them absolute Mistresses of themselves and all their Goods, these Promises they sealed with Tears, and all the Women answered after this manner, valiant young men, we want not at home either Riches, or the Affections of our Parents and Friends, neither come we hither to you for want of these things, or to make sale of our Beauties: but considering you as strangers, for whom we have a great esteem, we have not disdained to show you this civility, now therefore because you say you love us and are so troubled at this our departure, we thought good not to gainsay your entreaties, if therefore you will plight your Faith and promise us Marriage,( which is the only condition that can detain us) we will live with you as your Lawful Wives, but we fear lest when your Lusts are satisfied, you will with shane and contumely sand us back again to our Parents, which so reasonable apprehensions of ours you ought to pardon.  
These passionate Lovers promised to give their Faith in what manner so ever, and refuse no condition, so extreme was their Love.  
Here note by the way that the Hebrew Young Men promised the Midianitish Young Women Marriage, and swore to love them as their wives.  
Secondly, that the Maidens enjoin the young men to promise them Marriage, and plight their Faith, which must be the only Condition which would detain them, and then they would willingly live with them as their Wives.  F. 
Truly this is more than a little to the purpose indeed it seems the Hebrews promised to mary them.  E. 
Yea and did mary them as you shall see hereafter, but this was not all. Well then( said the Virgins) since you are so pleased, and that you have customs so different from other Nations, that you use only certain Meats and Drinks, it is necessary if you will mary us, to Adore our Gods, for by no other Argument can you persuade us, that you Love us unfeignedly, except you Honour as we do, the same Gods; neither shall you be blamed, if you honour the Gods of that Country into which you are come, considering that our Gods are common to all Nations, whereas your God is adored by none but yourselves, choose therefore( said they) either to comform yourselves in opinion with other men, or seek out another World, wherein you may live according to your particular ways and Customs. The Hebrews blinded with the Love which they bare to the Virgins, liked well their words, and consented to that which they said, suffering themselves to be seduced, according as they were invited, &c.  
Hereby you may see that as the Hebrew young men had promised( as above) Marriage to those Midianitish Virgins so they consented to that which they said, and suffered themselves to be seduced, according as they were invited, i.e. To take them to wife, and to Adore their Gods, 
called Zimri, Numb. 25 14.  Zambrias( saith Josephus) of the Tribe of Simeon, Married Cosby the Midianite Daughter of Zur, a Prince of the Country, and to please her, sacrificed after the manner of the Country, contrary to the Law of God. So that you see that soon after he had committed Fornication, in Marrying Cosby, he to please her sacrificeth to their Gods, that was the effect of his Marriage contrary to Gods Law: but to go on, during this state of affairs, Moses being afraid lest some more grievous mischief should succeed, called the People together, and accusing no man in particular( for that he was unwilling to cast those into desperation, who whilst they thought their Fault lay hidden, might be reduced to a better Mind) he  told them that it was a thing unworthy their virtue, and that of their Ancestors, to prefer their Pleasure before their Religion, that it behoved them whilst they had time, to repent, and to show themselves to be valiant men, not by contemning all Holy and Divine Laws, but by repressing their disordinate Passions, that it was a strange thing that having lived in the desert modestly, they should now in a plentiful Country grow so dissolute and disordinate, as to loose that merit in influence, which they had acquired in Necessity. By such like Speeches, he endeavoured to reclaim the Youth, and to reduce them to a better mind: whereupon Zambrias rising up, spake after this manner.  
Moses ( saith he) use thou, if thou pleasest, thine own Laws, whereunto by long use thou hast added Authority, without which thou hadst long ago suffered Punishment for them, and learnt at thine own cost, that the Hebrews ought not to be deluded by thee, for myself thou shalt never tie me to thy Tyrannical Decrees, for hitherto hast thou endeavoured nothing else, but under pretext of Law and Religion to bring us into Servitude and subjection, and thyself to Power, and sovereignty, by forbidding us the pleasure, and liberties which all men that are free ought to enjoy, was there any worse in our Egyptian thraldom than the power thou assumest to punish every man, by the Laws of thy own making, whereas thou thyself art more worthy to be punished in that thou despisest those of all other Nations, and wilt have none but thine observed, and so preferrest thiy particular judgement before that of all other men whatsoever, but I as touching that which I have done, in that I suppose it be well done, am not afraid to confess in this Assembly, that I have taken 
Zimri confesseth he had married Cosby, he had taken her to Wife.  a stranger to Wife( note that well) thou hearest mine Actions from my own Mouth as from a true and resolute man, neither do I desire that they should be hidden, 'tis true also, that I sacrifice to the Gods to whom thou forbiddest to sacrifice, because I think my se f bound not to submit to thy Tyranny, of Learning nothing that pertains to Religion but from thee alone; and I take it as no Obligation to me, for any man to assume as thou dost more Authority over me, then I have myself. Thus Josephus. Why may we not credite Josephus as much or more than any other Author, in this matter, where is there any one that goes about to disprove him, and if there be let Mr. T. produce him, or any one for him that may be better credited then Josephus, and we will consider it, but if not let Mr. T. be hereafter silent, unless he speak to recant, and aclowledge his error.  
But let us note farther some particular things, from what Josephus hath said, first that the Hebrew Young Men being enamoured with the Beauty, and Worldly Glory of the Midianitish Virgins, they promised them Marriage. Secondly, that when the Midianitish Virgins perceived that the Hebrew young men were entangled with their Beauty, they drew back, and made as if they would depart, and by no means will be prevailed with, to comply with the desire of the Hebrews except they will promise to make them their wives.  
Thirdly, that the Hebrews do promise to mary them, and make them Mistresses of themselves, and all their goods, so blind is Carnal Love, and inordinate Affection.  
Fourthly, that when the Midianitish Virgins saw that they had thus far gotten the Victory, they refuse yet to yield to the desire of the Hebrews, except they will forsake their own Laws, and the worship of their God, and eat Meats which they were forbidden to do, and Sacrifice to the Gods of the Moabites, and the Midianites, which rather then they will loose the enjoyment of their Love, and the Pleasure they lusted after, they consent to do, this evil being the product of their sinful Marriage.  
Fiftly, that Zimri the Son of Salu a Prince of a chief house among the Simeonites, Num. 25.14. Took to wife Cozbi the Daughter of Zur, he was head over a People, and of a chief house in Midian, ver. 15. which he to please her Sacrificed to their Gods.  
sixthly, That by all this it doth appear, that the sin of the Hebrews was not Common Fornication, i.e. For a man to lye with a Virgin, before or without Matrimonial Contract, but their sin was in Marrying those women they were forbidden by the Law of God to make Marriages with( to wit) the Moabitish and Midianitish Women, and this is that which the Spirit of God calls Fornication, Rev. 2.14. To eat things Sacrificed to Idols, and to commit Fornication.  
Nor is what Josephus saith without Reason from the Scripture, for it is scarcely to be thought that Zimri, a Prince of a Chief House, in his Tribe should cast of all Morality at once, and commit uncleanness in the Face of the Sun. That is to lye with a woman that was not his wife, But in plain and common sense his whore. Num. 25.8.  
Secondly, He must not only put from him, and cast away the very Law of Nature, which is written in the Hearts of the Heathen themselves, Rom. 2.14.15. But in contempt of God, and Moses his Superior, yea and the Congregation( at such a time when the Congregation was weeping before the Door of the Tabernacle) glory in his uncleanness, i.e. his lying with a woman that was not his wife, in his bringing her to his Brethren in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the Congregation of the Children of Israel, Num. 25.6. And in so insolent a manner( as Josephus saith) justify himself, which Fornication of his, had it been that which is common, 
Fol. 22.  he would not so boldly and openly have shewed her to Moses, nor could he justify, no not by the Law of those Heathen he had joined affinity with, for Mr. T. saith the defiling of Virgins, goes hard with the worst of men and is abhorred by the Heathen. Thus you may see that it is not so hard to know( as Mr. T. insinuates,) what the Doctrine of Balaam was, nor what the sin of Israel was, but that it may be inspected found out and detected, notwithstanding he saith it cannot be known by any thing in Num. 25. nor Rev 2.14. Yet you see we have so much as the Rational may safely conclude that Israels sin Num. 25. was Mixt-Marriages, and that the Spirit of God calleth it in Rev. 2.14. Fornication, as was above shewed, it is in the sense of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.15.16.17.18. which I presume Mr. T. will never disprove from the word of God. And then we have another Text, which fully prove that Mixt-Marriages is Fornication, in 1 Cor. 10.8. which shows that it is called Fornication still for us, under the Gospel, to make Marriages with the Seed of the Mother of Harlots, i.e. with the members of False Churches, who differ from the members of the true Church in Institutions, the words are these, neither let us commit Fornication, as some of them committed: and fell in one Day 23000, [ as they committed] Namely Fornication, which was in that, the Israelites made Marriages with Idolatrous Moabites, and Midianites, and not committing Fornication with them as their whores, as Mr. T. supposeth, Num. 25. And for this the Church in Pergamos was reproved by the Spirit of God, Rev. 2.14. i.e. For having them among them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac( not Israel as Mr. T. observs,) to cast a stumbling Block before the Children of Israel, to eat things offered to Idols, and to commit Fornication i.e. to mary with members of False Churches, the Seed of the great whore, under this Reproof are the Churches in this day as Pergamos was then, they have some of them, those that hold this Doctrine, as Mr. T. for one, who is Balaams second in this evil work, who hath not as Balaam did, taught Balac to lay a stumbling Block before Israel, but he hath taught the People of God to comply with what Balaam taught Balac, and to consent to make marriages with the Superstitious world, saying to them, it's weakness to be offended with them, that do mary such, and that there is more cause of joy than Sorrow, that they who some few years since thought you not fit to live, you should be so much in the favour of those Persons, as to make marriages with you, and especially we should take it well from them who have the Government in their hands, and we ought to be thankful to God for such a mercy.  
O how bravely is Balaams Counsel to Balac backed and seconded by Mr. T. by his Evil council to Israel, in those words of his, besides his Arguments in his Book, by which he labours with his little might and main to persuade Gods Israel to comply, and join affinity with, the unregenerated, unsanctified, superstitious world: 
Who so causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit; but the upright shall have good things in possession, Prov. 28.10.  what cause have that People to repent that they have had and still have such a one, that not only holdeth Balaams Doctrine, but teacheth the People compliance with it, and to commit the sin i.e. Fornication, and hath exposed it to public view, if they therefore shall not repent thereof Christ will come unto them quickly, and will sight against them with the Sword of his mouth. Rev. 2.16. Thus it is shown what the stumbling block was Balaam cast before the Children of Israel, what his Doctrine was, or wherein he taught Balac what to do, to cause Israel to fall into the displeasure of God by their committing Idolatry, and Fornication in their taking them wives of the Daughters of Moab, and Midian, which is by the Spirit said to be Fornication, Rev. 2.14. 1 Cor. 10.8.  F. 
Truly I now see and believe what you have said is the Truth, and am convinced that Mixt-Marriages is( in the sense you have shown) Fornication, and therefore to be avoided by all that fear the Lord, but what then pray doth his saying mean, that Balac might make some scruple, as foreseing some great evil must be committed to accomplish his design, and then his four Reasons to strengthen his scruple, then his imaginary talk about Balaams satisfying of Balac, and lastly his concluding thus, this I take to be the Doctrine of Balaam, pray what doth all this signify?  E. 
Indeed and in truth nothing at all, and there is as little need to say any thing to it, only I take notice that Mr. T. tells you that those reasons he imagines Balaam gives Balac to satisfy his supposed scruple, is Balaams Doctrine, Learnedly concluded, when nothing but Conceit is the Foundation of it, for Balaams Doctrine was the Counsel he gave Balas, to cause Israel to sin. And moreover I observe as lightly as Mr. T. sets by Josephus, he is forced to make use of some of his words,( for saith he Balaam spake to Balac;) when he thinks they will serve to strengthen his Imagination. The Plot was that Balac should take the fairest of their Virgins and dress them richly, and sand them to dance about the Tents of Israel, that he might provoke the Israelites, whom he knew to be great Admirers of beautiful Women. &c. This although he conceals, yet he takes out of Josephus, 
Fol. 22.  though not word for word, and therefore you may see the man being strangely conceited, will make use of Josephus, though to no purpose, and therefore since in all this he is besides the matter, I shall lay it aside and say no more to it, as not worth any farther notice taken of them.  
But yet I must not so pass by what he saith in his last, before he comes to 2 Cor. 6.14. And that is this. I will show you for all this( saith he) that Israel might mary both with Moab and Ammon, and that the Children begot of them, might in time be admitted into the Congregation. And that both these are true. See Ruth. 1.4. Deut. 23.3. And the reason is rendered, why they might not be admitted sooner, ver. 4. I will speak to the last first. The Text saith Deut. 23.3. An Ammonite, or Moabite shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord, even to their Tenth Generation, shall they not enter into the Congregation of the Lord for ever. Therefore the Children of Israel might Lawfully mary with Moab, and Ammon as Mr. T. argues, the Second verse of the same Chapter, saith thus, A Bastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord; even to the Tenth Generation shall he not enter into the Congregation of the Lord. From whence one may as fairly reason and say, Ergo a man that is a Believer may lawfully defile a Virgin and have a Bastard by her, because they, namely Bastards, may enter into the Congregation in their Tenth Generation. If Mr. T's arguing be right reason, with what an ugly face doth this look, be shamed of this foul, impertinent, and irrational talking. And then farther Mr. T. saith the Reason is rendered why they might not enter no sooner, ver. 4. Yea so it is and a binding one it is also, because they met you not with Bread, saith the Lord, and with Water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against thee Balaam the Son of Beor of Pether of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. See verse the Sixth, and also therefore for that reason, thou shalt not seek their Peace, nor their prosperity all thy Days for ever. Then if so, they must not make Marriages with them for ever, any rational man will say.  
Now Secondly, To what he saith that Israel might mary both with Moab and Ammon, for which he quotes Ruth 1.4. which words are these, and Elimelech Naomies Husband died, and she was left and her two Sons, and they took them wives of the women of Moab, the Name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth, and they dwelled there about Ten Years.  
I say that those Moabitish Women were then prosylited, and had cast off their Idolatry, or it had been unlawful for Naomies Sons to mary them, as was but now shown a little above, and in this I am not alone. They took them Moabitish wives, which was lawful to do, if these women were converted, otherwise not: for to mary Canaanitish wives, was forbidden upon this ground, lest they should seduce the People of God to Idolatry, which reason or ground had also place in the Moabitish Idolatrous women. See Ezra 9.1. Neh. 13.23. that Ruth was converted appeareth plain, ver. 16. Chap. 2.12. See the Dutch Annotations on this place, and that Orpha was converted, is as little to be doubted, and they said unto her surely we will return with thee unto thy people, i.e. Orpha as well as Ruth said so, ver. the 10. and they wept, i.e. Orpha as well as Ruth wept, ver. the 9. And they lift up their voice again and wept, when their Mother in Law importuned them to go back, ver. 14. Though Orpah did not persevere as Ruth did to go on with her Mother, but went back to her Country, and it may be to her Gods also. 
2 Cor. 6.14. Fol. 25.  As many in our days do. Be not unequally yoked together believers with unbelievers. Is the next place which Mr. T. thinks to wipe off the force of, by wondering that it should be urged, for the case is plain saith he, it speaks of worship, and a Spiritual Relation, and that appears from many expressions the Apostle useth.  
First, Mr. T. hath no such cause to wonder, for Marriages may be the thing, at least one intended by the Apostle in this place, for any thing he hath said to the contrary, and it is the opinion of Dr. Babington, that the Apostle forbids Marriage in 2 Cor. 6.14. Be not unequally yoked saith the Apostle, for what Fellowship hath Righteousness with Unrighteousness, what 
See Dr. Babinton sometime Bishop of Worcester.  communion hath Light with Darkness, or what Concord hath Christ with Belial, and what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel, and what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols. It is a law( saith he) of Marriage that should not be broken. But Mr. T. thinks this place doth not intend Marriage at all, though the text Reads, 2 Cor. 6.14. Thus, Ne impari Jugo copulamini cum infidelibus; be not unequally yoked, coupled, or tied together with Unbelievers, and as Mr. den saith Conjugium is wedlock or Marriage, and Conjuga a wise, so that the Prohibition of the Apostle is, that Believers do not yoke, couple, or tie themselves together cum infidelibus, i.e. with Infidels or Unbelievers, Conjugium in Marriage or Wedlock, and for this the Apostle gives his following reasons by way of Interrogation, among which take notice of this particular one, and what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel? ver. 15. To which question we must answer none, no part at all, if so then Marriage is prohibited in this place, for if a Believer mary with an Unbeliever or Infidel, he that is a Believer hath a peculiar and special part with the Unbeliever, they are no longer twain but one Flesh, a greater part then any other can have, she the wife,( that is an Unbeliever) of a Believer, is Bone of his Bone, and Flesh of his Flesh, then since man and wife have such part one with another, a believer must not be yoked, coupled, or tied together in Wedlock, or Marriage with an Unbeliever, as is forbid or prohibited in the 14. ver. Be not unequally yoked, together with Unbelivers, and confirmed by this Interrogation, ver. 15. And the Apostles farther Reasons, for ye are the Temple of the Living God, ver. 16. Now for a Believer, whose body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost, to be joined to a Harlot, makes himself one Flesh with her, and this were to defile the Temple of God, and such will God destroy, this considered, there is no cause to wonder this place 2 Cor. 6.14. should be urged to prove Mixt-Marriages unlawful, which so fully doth it: unless Ignorance should be the cause of Admiration.  
Now it's plain saith Mr. T., this Respects the Church, and their Assemblings, and having Communion one with another, and with God himself, &c. For though saith he I may not go to the Idols Temple, and eat their Sacrifices with a Pagan, nor suffer him to sit down with me at the Lords Table, yet I may join Partners with him in Trade and Business, Mr. T. should have said, yet I a Believer may join with him in Marriage, though he be a Pagan, Turk, or Papist, and then he had drawn his conclusion right, and had he proved it also, he then had put all out of doubt, but to say, I may Trade with him, would be a very far fetched consequence, if he should thus Reason, I may Trade with him, therefore I may mary with him, be yoked, tied, or coupled together with him in Marriage, and if he say not so, he saith nothing to the purpose, for we may Trade with many we may not mary with. And therefore to as little purpose would it be to say any more, in answer to what he saith, to make invalid 2 Cor. 6.14. this that hath been said being sufficient to show that, that place doth plainly, and fully prohibit Mixt-Marriages.  F. 
I am so well satisfied, that truly I think, if no more be said this that hath been said is enough, and sufficient to convince any man, but there is one Text more that Mr. T. labours to make invalid, as to the business of Mixt-Marriages, pray let me hear your judgement on it, that I may be satisfied in that also.  E. 
Yea Mr. T. makes a heavy stir about it, as if he would, if not tyre his Reader, yet weary his respondent with answering, that which is( though much of it) little or nothing to the purpose, the place is 1 Cor. 7.39. The Wife is bound by the Law, as long as her Husband liveth, but if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to mary with whom she will, onely in the Lord.  
And he would have us to understand, he might put many questions to us about these words, naming them, and so passeth them, and so shall I, only his last which is this, 
Fol. 26.  seeing the Apostle speaks only of the women, and although many times, when men are mentioned the women are included, yet I know not where the women being mentioned includes the men, to which I say, whether when the women being mentioned includes the men, or no, I will not stand upon, but this I may farther say, that when women are put upon somethings as their duties to do, the same duties are incumbant upon men, as for Example, even the Ornament of a meek and quiet Spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price, saith the Apostle, 1 Pet. 3.4. This is mentioned as the womens duty, but is it not the duty of men as well as of women to put on the Ornament of a meek and quiet Spirit, although this place requires it of women, and men are not mentioned, is it not evil and sin for men to be haughty and proud: as saith the Apostle, and be clothed with Humility, for God resisteth the proud and giveth Grace to the Humble. 1 Pet. 5.5. men are here required to be humble as well as women, and so would it not be sin in a man to be a Brawler, Contentious, furious, passionate, unquiet, but for men to be of a meek and quiet Spirit,( learn of me,( saith our Saviour) for I am meek and lowly in heart. Mat. 11.29.) without doubt is equally valuable in the sight of God, as for women to be so. So then what the limits and bounds that the Spirit of God doth set the Women in this place, he also sets the men, yea Young Men and Virgins, according to the Law, thou shalt not give thy Daughter to his Son, nor take his Daughter to thy Son; have not we Power to led about a Sister, a wife as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas 1 Cor. 9.5. where you see it must be a Sister, a wife, no power hath Paul to mary a wife that is no Sister, men may not then( to wit Believers) mary but only in the Lord, no more than women. But the whole stress saith Mr. T. lies in the last clause, now suppose saith he I allow you, that to be rightly baptized is to be in the Lord, yet I deny these words to be a command or the recital of a Command. And yet presently he recites one himself in the Old Testament, thou shalt not give thy Daughter to his Son, nor take his Daughter to thy Son. And then with his own words confesseth that by those Precepts( mark that) men were bound as well as women, which saith he is not expressed here, what if it be not expressed there, that men were bound to mary in the Lord, as well as women, yet if it be in another place it is well enough, as he himself saith it is, and saith it was a Precept too; besides I have above shewed that some duties applied to women, and men not expressed, yet the duty is the same to men, and they bound to be found in those same duties as well as women, so it is in this case be not unequally yoked together with Unbelievers. which Prohibition doth include Men, Widows and Maids, and is equally binding to them all, as if it had been said thou shalt not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, neither men nor women, and the Disobedience to the one as sinful as it would be to the other, and saith the Apostle, if any man thinks himself to be a Prophet or Spiritual, let him aclowledge that the things that I writ unto you, are the Commandments of the Lord. 1 Cor. 14.37. but if any should object and say, that all that Paul writ to the Corinthians, were not the Commandments of the Lord, as he himself confesseth, though some things he writes might be to them; I answer, that in those things that are not the commands of the Lord, he like a faithful Steward gives them so to understand, but I speak▪ this by Permission, but not of Commandment. 1 Cor. 7.6. But in the case of Marriage he speaks by command, 1 Cor. 7.10. As I shall show hereafter. If so then the limitation only in the Lord is not less then the Commandment of the Lord. This may serve also for an answer to his second reason of his denial these words, only in the Lord to be a Command or the recital of a Command.  
In his Third Reason he saith, if ever there were any such Law that a Widdow might mary with none but a Baptized Person, 
Fol. 27.  or one in the Church, then it's either a Law given by way of Precept, and is some where to be found amongst Gods Commands, or else she is bound to mary in the Lord, by the Law of Prudence. If you say she is bound by the former of these Laws, then I pray show when it was given, and by whom, and where the Record is to be found.  
What I have said above, might well serve for answer to all this, but further what should Mr. T. demand to know, when such a Law was given: and by whom, and where the Record is to be found, when he himself hath found it all. When he cites that place; Thou shalt not give thy Daughter to his Son, nor take his Daughter to thy Son, and those he doth aclowledge to be binding Precepts, by which Precept saith he Men were bound as well as Women, now if that were a binding Precept then under the Law both to Men and to Women,( though he hath before contended against the same) and if the Israelites were not to mary but only in the Lord, that is none that were Idolaters, but those amongst themselves that were in Covenant with God, according to that made with Abraham, Gen. 17.10, 11. The now Israel, i.e. the Circumcised In Heart, Rom 2.29. who are( being Christs) Abrahams Seed, Gal. 3.29. are not to be yoked, coupled or tied together in Wedlock or Marriage with the Seed of the Mother of Harlots, because the one hath no part with the other, and therefore widdows Men or Maids, though they are at Liberty to mary with whom they will, it is with this limitation only in the Lord; answering to the former Law given to Abrahams Natural Seed( they being a peculiar people or Nation chosen and separated from all other People and Nations in the world,) that they should not make Marriages with any other People or Nations, and this Law being continued now under the Gospel to Believers, who are a Chosen Generation, a Royal Priest-hood, an Holy Nation, a Peculiar People. 1 Pet. 2.9. no man need to go far to find when it was given, by whom, and where the Record is, it being first, or originally given after the fall, when there was two sorts of men in the world, Godly, and Ungodly, and continued to Abraham, down to Moses, and so to Christ, who hath also by his Spirit continued this Law to Abrahams Seed, according to the Faith, and by this it may be seen by whom it was given, and as for the Record it is up and down, here and there, throughout the whole Scriptures both of the Old, and New Testament, and whosoever pleaseth to have recourse thereunto, may be satisfied. And therefore it is sin, and Imprudence too, for a woman man or maid that is at liberty by the Law, to mary contrary to the Law, which giveth not liberty to an Holy Nation, as the true Church is said to be, to mary with any of the Nations of the world, no more then had that peculiar Nation of the Jews, to mary with other Nations, who all of them being in the state of Nature Unregenerated, and therefore not in Christ, 2 Cor. 5.17. They are forbidden to yoke with in Marriages, 2 Cor. 6.14. and expressly limited to mary with them that are in the Lord, only in the Lord. In this that I have last spoken to, lies the stress of all that Mr. Tory saith, and therefore to trace him in his nothing to purpose Reasons that follow, would be as impertinent as he is in laying of them down, and troubling his Reader with; only I will remind him of Mr. dens words, which may serve for a full answer to what he saith in his following reasons about the Apostles advice, it was a matter of doubt( I say with Mr. den) in the Corinthian Church, whether a man, and woman coming together, when both of them were Unbelievers, and one of them afterwards be converted, it were not the duty of the Believer to put the Unbeliever away, these things they wrote to the Apostle about, 1 Cor. 7.1. As is plain by his answer; and unto the Married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her Husband, but if she depart let her remain unmarried, or be Reconciled to her Husband: and let not the Husband put away his wife. ver. 10.11. For the Lord commands it, she is bound by the Law as long as her Husband liveth. But if Death part them, if her Husband be dead she is at liberty to be Married to whom she will, only in the Lord, ver. 39. Note now the same Lord that commanded, that she must not depart from her Husband, she being by the Law free, and not bound to her Husband, he being dead doth also command her, she being at liberty to mary, that she do not yoke, bind, or tie her self again to an Unbeliever, but if she do mary, as she is at liberty to do with whom she will, provided he be in the Lord, the Lord that commandeth her not to depart from her Husband, while he lived, though he were an Unbeliever, doth also command her, he being dead, that if she mary another as she now is at liberty to do, that she mary onely in the Lord, one that is a New Creature, a Believer, one that is born again.  
I may with good reason, then conclude that the Lord hath commanded the widow to mary only in the Lord, that limitation is by way of command, as well as it was his command she should not depart from her Husband though an unbeliever, whilst he lived.  F. 
You Brother have given me content and satisfaction, and I hope your pains will be to the satisfaction of many others, pray speak somewhat to his third head or demonstration as he calls it about the punishment God hath inflicted upon such as have so Married.  E. 
Yea, I shall so do, and I shall begin with those words of his, slay ye every one his man that is joined unto Baal-Peor. 
Fol. 31.  Not saith Mr. T. those that were Married to Moabites, it is true, the Text doth not say, slay them that are Married to Moabites, and if that be all he means, I have nothing to say to him about it. But I suppose he means that the Elders of Israel were forbidden by Moses, to slay those that had Married the Moabites, suggesting that some did mary with the Moabites that did not join to their Gods, for( saith he) Israel might mary with the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites and Egyptians, and( he saith) he hath shewed it.  
If this he saith be true, there is but little reason they should be slain for it, but the Truth thereof hath been already above by me plainly disproved, and therefore his saying not those that were married to the Moabites, is an Addition to the Scripture.  
I have shewed that some of the Children of Israel did mary, with the Moabites, Num. 25. And it is more then probable, that only they that did mary with them did join to Baal-Peor, but however Zimri was Married to Cozbi a Midianitish Woman, and this I am sure of, that he was slain by Phineas the Priest, but Mr. T. will say it was for his Idolatry, and not for his marrying; and why not for both? suppose a Company of Thieves should Rob by the High-way, or break into a mans House, and should not only take their money and Goods, but murder them also, and they afterwards taken& Convicted both of the robbery and murder, and hanged for it, will any man affirm that those men that did both Steal and Kill, were punished with Death, for Killing, but not for Stealing, or that they were Executed for Robbery, but not for Murder, no man would be so irrational, but all men will say they died by the hand of Justice, both for Theft, and Murder; even so the Israelites having both sinned in marrying the Daughters of Moab, and Ammon, and in Sacrificing to their Gods, what rational man will say, there fell of them 24000, for marrying the Daughters of Moab, but not for their joining themselves to the Gods of Moab, or will say they were punished for their Idolatry, but not for their marrying; it is true, punished they were for their Idolatry, but who will presume to say( except God had in some place of Scripture said it) that they were not punished for their Marrying with the Moabites, since it is clear, that God had commanded they should not mary with them, as I have proved, and that they sinned in Marrying with the Moabites.  
Secondly, what Idolatry did the Jews commit, that married Wives of 
Ashdod was a City of the Philistians, but none of the seven Nations.  Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, Nehem. 13.23. There is no mention made of any, indeed Mr. T. saith, that they brought up their Children in the Language of Ashdod, which we have reason to believe saith he, was to fit them for the Service of Ashdod, but however this is only his supposition, the Scripture doth not charge them with that, or any part of Idolatry, but merely for the single sin of Marrying with those Nations, and I contended with them, saith Nehemiah, and cursed them, and smote some of them, &c. He contended with some body, it's true saith Mr. T., but with who? those that had Married Wives of Ashdod. And why I pray, not as well with those that married with Moab and Ammon, Ashdod was a City of the Philistians, and none of the Seven Nations, no more then the Moabites, and the Ammonites were, and therefore he had as much reason to contend with, curse, and smite them that married with the women of Moab and Ammon, as those that married the Daughters of Ashdod. But note, Nehemiah doth not complain of their Idolatry, but of their marrying with those Nations he doth, ver. 27. Shall we then harken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange Wives; you see it was a Transgression against God, namely their marrying them, if so, then they had a Law forbidding it, else it could be no Transgression, for where no Law is, there is no Transgression. Rom. 4.15. Now for this sin and no other that is mentioned, doth Nehemiah punish the Jews that had married strange wives? by all which it may easily be perceived, that the Israelites were punished of God divers ways, not only for their Idolatry, but for their making marriages with those Nations also.  
Idolatry was indeed a great Aggravation when it was complicated with such marriages, and did incense the Lord the more against them, and much heighthen their Punishment, but to say that Israel was not punished for the sin of mixt-marriages, but for their Idolatry only, is non-Scriptural and without Reason, and so is it to say that such Marriages is not in itself evil, that which the Holy Scripture never in no place hath said, but that it is sin, and a Transgression against God, the word doth in terminis say; yea and that it was a sin of that unsteady which drew at the Heels of it, other sins after it, namely Idolatry, as some other sins doth, as Drunkenness, Lying and Stealing, are commonly attended with other sins, yea it is a sin that was commonly then attended with Idolatry, which was one Reason why the Lord did forbid Israels marrying with any of the Nations; and so it doth now as experience hath proved, and therefore a sin the more to be avoided by the Lords People, the Lord himself saw not only that it would endanger his People, but that it would turn away his People from following of him; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thy Daughter shalt not thou give unto his Son, nor his Daughter shalt thou take unto thy Son, for they will turn away thy Son from following of me, that they may serve other Gods. Deut. 7.3, 4. And that so it commonly proved the Scripture and our experience hath plentifully shown, but to say as Mr. T. doth, that it is not a punishable sin, or in itself no sin is to oppose himself to the very express words of God.  
Thus have I according to my understanding shown you that in this last as in all the rest, he is beside the Truth, 
To what Mr. T. farther saith to this, see Mr. I. D's answer.  to follow him in all that he after saith, would be but lost time for me to writ, and others to red, since what he farther saith to this third demonstration is but reiteration, and so it would be in me, to answer over and over, it sufficeth that I have proved that mixt-marriages was sinful before the Law, in the Law, and now in the Gospel, the which if Mr. T. or any one else thinks I have not, let them disprove me if they can.  F. 
Brother I desire God may bless what you have said to all them in the Churches that have sinned in this matter of Marriage, and that it may put a stop to this growing evil, that is so defiling, now I pray go on to Mr. T. second Affirmation, that the Church hath no Rule to withdraw from such Sinners, given them by the Lord.  E. 
I shall answer him in that also, I observe his Confidence is great, he supposing it can never be proved, for he grants for Arguments sake, that such Marriages are unlawful, and yet he affirmeth there is no Precept to warrant the Churches withdrawing from them.  
First, I shall endeavour to prove that the Church hath a Rule to withdraw from such Members as sinners, for Marrying of Unbelievers.  
Secondly, Answer what of Consequence,( if any be) that Mr. T. saith to the contrary, and I hope you will see that there is sufficient Ground to deal with them.  
And First, I shall begin with some Proof out of the Old Testament. Where were many examples of Gods severe Judgments executed upon Offenders in this case.  
As in the destroying the Old World by the Flood, 24000 fell of the Plague together with them which by the hand of Justice were hanged up before the Sun, Num. 25.4. which were about a 1000, and 23000 fell by the immediate hand of the Lord as the Apostle counts, 1 Cor. 10.8.( in all 24000 as Moses counts, Num. 25.4.) which makes the just number of 24000, who all were cut off from the Congregation of the Lord for the sin of Mixt-Marriages, namely 1000 by the censure of the Judges, and 23000 by the Hand of the Lord for this sin, the cause of their committing Idolatry, and also for their Idolatry, which was the effect of Mixt-Marriages, these cum multis aliis I might here set down, but I know these will not serve Mr. T's turn they will not satisfy him, yet I hope some concerned will tremble at the word of God, and mourn for their sin in the sense of these great and dreadful Judgments of the Lord, poured down upon such sinners, and that others that have not yet defiled themselves in Marrying with the Seed of the Great Whore, will be warned by those plagues and punishments which fell on them, not to provoke God in the like manner.  
But Secondly, to come nearer Mr. T.; I find they had a Law or Precept in the Church of the Jews, to excommunicate such as joined in Affinity with any of the Nations, you will see it in Neh. 13.23. In those days also saw I Jews, that had Married Wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab, ver. 24. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their Hair, &c.[ And he cursed them]( note that) i.e. he excommunicated them, as saith the Apostle, if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha, that is, let him be accursed or excommunicated, 1 Cor. 16.22. So saith Nehemiah, I cursed them, I excommunicated them, I put them away from the Congregation of the Lord. And with me agrees in this the Dutch Annotations: Then I contended with them and cursed them,[ out of Zeal unto Justice, declaring, 
See the Dutch Annotaions upon Neh. 13.23.24, 25.  that as perjured Covenant Breakers, they had brought a Curse upon themselves, and had deserved to be Banned, and cut off from the People of God,] and smote some men of them and plucked of their Hair,[ for an open Punishment or disgrace, compare, Deut. 25. 2 Sam. 10.4.] and I made them swear by God, if you shall give your Daughters unto their Sons, and if you shall take of their Daughters for your Sons or for yourselves[ an abrupt kind of Speech, which was frequently used in Oaths, or Swearing, wherein must be understood, then thou shalt be cursed, or then let God punish thee, this Oath which he pronounceth before them, they were to take the same upon themselves, that being by this means stirred up, they might not hereafter fall into the same Abomination again.] You see by this exposition of the Synod, that Nehemiahs Cursing them was no less then a cutting them off from the People of God, and of the like import is that in the 28 ver. and one of the Sons of Joiada, the Sons of Eliashib the High Priest, was Son in Law to Sanballat the Horonite, therefore I chased him from me.  
And it is to be observed.  
First, That these Nations the Jews had married were Philistians, Ammonites, and Moabites, which three were none of the Seven Nations, Mr. Tory all along so stoutly affirmeth that the Israelites were forbidden to mary with, and none other but them, and yet Nehemiah saith, they Transgressed against God in Marrying with those Three, and he also cursed them for it.  
Secondly, It is to be observed that Nehemiah doth not charge these Jews with the Sin of Idolatry, but singly for making Marriages with these fore-mentioned Three Nations, and for that sin he cursed them, now Nehemiah either had a Precept to warrant his Cursing them, or he had none, if he had he did well to curse them, and what he did, God did approve of him for doing, and without doubt he knew full well, that he did what God required him to do, by his Request in the 31. verse, Remember me, O my God, for good; or else if he had no Precept, he presumptuously took upon him without any warranty from God, to curse,( which Balaam could not do while God saw no sin in them.) those Jews which had sinned in Marrying with Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, and so became a sinner himself, being at the best but passionately, and not according to Knowledge, Zealous in that thing, which I suppose Mr. T. will not lay the Imputation of such a Crime to the charge of this good man Nehemiah, and although we do not find where God gave this Precept in particular, yet the practise of Nehemiah may sufficiently convince us that there was one given, here therefore although I have not yet produced a Precept, yet I have an example which proveth that the Church of the Jews had power given them to deal with such offenders.  
Thirdly, I will now come to the New Testament, which must be the Rule for Churches now, and show from thence that the Church hath power by Virtue of Precept to deal with, and withdraw from such Members as do yoke themselves in Marriage with Unbelievers; and I will begin with 2 Thes. 3.6. Now we command you Brethren in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every Brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the Tradition which he Received of us.  
This is commanded, it is not only the advice of the Apostle to them, but his command, and in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ they are commanded( to wit) the Church to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly, now Mixt-Marriages is disorder, it's against the mind of the Spirit, as I have proved from 1 Cor. 6.15, 16. &c. 2 Cor. 14. 1. Cor. 7.39. Then he that is yoked unequally in Marriage, and that marrieth one not in the Lord, and that taketh the Members of Christ and maketh them the Members of an Harlot, must needs be a disorderly Walker, and them that walk disorderly, the Apostle commands the Church in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ to withdraw from, this is a plain and full Text, where it is commanded.  F. 
But Mr. T. saith this Text is no General Rule, it is plainly designed against such who are Idle, and negligent in their outward calling.  E. 
That idle Persons are such who walk disorderly is true, and that they ought to be withdrawn from, is true, but that the Apostle designed that particular disorder, and no other, in this Command withdraw from every Brother that walketh disorderly, is not true, except Mr. T. will prove that there is no disorderly walkers but such as are Idle, or if there be, they are to be suffered in their disorder, by the Church, they having no power to deal with a Member for any other disorderly walking whatsoever, if he should say so, then would he set open the Door yet wider to let in Fleshly Liberty, and sin, and stiffen the Necks, and harden the Hearts of Members against Church Admonitions and Censures almost in all cases that are sinful, as if the Church were to have a particular Law, or command expressed particularly in dealing with every single and particular disorder.  
Pray if I should ask Mr. T. where he will find in the New Testament a Precept, or an example to give the Church power to deal with or withdraw from a Member, that should make it his practise to swear in his Communication, this is a sin, and I believe a breach of that Moral Precept, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Exod. 2.7. Yet hath the Church no particular Precept, no nor example to deal with this Swearer, for this particular sin of swearing, I might instance in many other Sins as Witch-Craft, Lying, &c. For which there is no Law particularly given the Church to withdraw from such Disorderly Persons, for those particular sins, what then must they be suffered in the Church, except they had it in the Scripture expressy said, now we command you Brethren in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw from every Brother, that is a Common Swearer, or liar, or a wizard, no sure that needs not, but it sufficeth, that Swearing, Lying and Witch-Craft is sin and disorderly walking, and the Church hath this Law and general Rule given them to use their power, or to empower them to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly, whether it be the sin and disorder of Idleness, or of Swearing, Lying, Witch-Craft, yea and all other sins and disorder whatsoever, neither can Mr. T. say any thing to the contrary, except he will say( which I think when he comes to himself he will not) that the Church must suffer such sinners and sins to be in the Church, for they have no Precept nor Example to withdraw from, or Excommunicate them in particular; and therefore they have no power so to do, but must let them alone, but he will say these are scandalous sins, and therefore the Church may withdraw from every Brother that is guilty of those sins and disorders, but then I say they must have( if Mr. T. be in the right) a particular Precept or Example for it, as they have to withdraw from an idle person who is scandalous, or else they have( saith Mr. T.) no Power or Rule to deal with such Offenders, but farther,( as Mr. D. hath minded) what if some Members should sprinkle their Children, that would not be scandalous, but rather commendable in the sight of the world, and suppose some other Members should forsake the assembling of themselves together with the Church as it was and still is the manner of some, and make it their practise to sit at home, or take their pleasure abroad after some sober sort, and manner, this would not be scandalous to the world but accounted good, and friendly Neighbour-hood, must both these be suffered in the Church, because the Church hath no Precept that saith particularly we command you, &c. To withdraw from every Brother that sprinkleth his Babe, and from every Brother that forsaketh the Assembling of the Saints, must the Church let them go on in their sin and keep them standing Members still with them, though they repent not but persist in those disorders, if what Mr. T. say be true, the Church must, and by this means in time there may be no baptized Believers, but that of Babes come in the stead of it, nor no assembling of the Saints, but when every one pleaseth, and so all things turn into mere disorder and confusion, even in like manner, the Church it appears then having that Rule, 2 Thes. 3.6. may withdraw from such disorderly persons, and therefore it is not a particular rule, only respecting the sin of Idleness as Mr. T. saith, but it is a general command or rule, giving the Church power to deal with every Brother for every disorder, and sin they shall be found guilty by the Law of God of, and then it is a Command, and Rule, giving the Church Power to withdraw from every Brother, yea and Sister, that doth mary sinfully, i.e. a Believer with an Unbeliever; though there could be no particular Law found to warrant the same, such Marriages being sin and disorder, as I have proved, which tho' it be sin, yet Mr. T. is so bold as to affirm there is neither Precept nor Example, therefore no Rule or Power given to the Church to deal with such Offenders, but how far from the Truth he is in his so affirming, may be easily perceived by his grand mistake about the mind and intent of the Spirit of God( as I have shewed) in 2 Thes. 3.6.  
Secondly, we have another General Command, so comprehensive that it excludes no Offence, nor sin, but includes all of all sorts and kinds whatsoever, and of what degree soever, that is public and open to be known, and that can be discerned, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. If thy Brother Trespass against thee, go and tell him his Fault between thee and him alone, agreeable to that in Levit. 19.17. Here in this sort as is directed by our Saviour, a Brother, a single person hath power and a Rule given him to deal with a disorderly person. In the first place so far as to tell the Offender his Fault, privately or between them two alone, if the Offender hear the Offended, then he hath gained his Brother, he hath no more to do, he must forgive him, but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be Established, and if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen Man and a Publican. Mat. 18.15.16, 17. In this Law of Christ it is clear and plain that the least sin of the lowest degree, even an Offence given to a Brother, comes within the Cognizance thereof provided it be a just offence, and if the Offender be obstinate, and impenitent, will not hear the First and Second Admonition, and Lastly doth neglect to hear the Church, the Church hath power given them by Christ, to hear, examine and give judgement, namely to Excommunicate him, he[ Christ] also giveth them to know, that what they Righteously do in this thing shall be confirmed in Heaven. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, ver. 18. It will naturally follow then, that if this Law doth empower the Church to deal with Members for the least known sin persisted in, then for greater sins in degree, as Mixt-Marriages, which is a sin against a Positive Prohibition, neither shalt thou make Marriages with them, Deut. 7.3. Only in the Lord; 1 Cor. 7.39. Be not unequally Yoked together in Marriage with Unbelievers. 2 Cor. 6.14.  
Thus you may see, and Mr. T. also if he do not close his Eyes, that the Church hath power to withdraw from every Member that shall mary with the Seed of the great Whore, which in the sense of the Apostle are Harlots.  
Thirdly, There is another Law which doth give the Church power to withdraw from Members, for the Sin of Mixt-Marriages, but now I have written unto you not to keep Company, if any man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat. 1 Cor. 5.11. [ if any man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator, &c. keep no company with him, with such a one, no not to eat,] whence it is apparent that if the Church be commanded not to Company with such, no not so much as to eat with them, then the Church must not have him in her Company at the Lords Table, that is a Fornicator, nor suffer him to partake with her, and she eat with him of that Holy Bread that is consecrated and set apart for the Commemoration of the death of her Lord, and in which she hath Holy Communion with the Lord in his Body and Blood, this I say we must understand to be in this Text prohibited by the Spirit of God, if so( as it cannot be denied) such then that mary contrary to positive prohibitions laid down by the Spirit of God, forbidding Believers to mary with Unbelievers, do sin against God in their so marrying, which sin in the sense I have above shewed, the Spirit of God saith is Fornication, then they that commit the aforesaid sin are Fornicators, the Church hath here then an express Law, which doth require, and empower her to withdraw from any man that is called a Brother, and guilty of that particular sin of Mixt-Marriages, which in the sense of the Spirit of God is Fornication, as lawfully, and by as good Authority, as from any man that is called a Brother, if he be Covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner,( which Mr. T. will say) all such sinners the Church ought to withdraw from, and not partake with such Sinners and sins, but keep themselves pure which no Church can do, if they suffer and allow sin and sinners amongst them, but will be defiled and corrupted, themselves, yea the whole Church, Sin will overspread as an Inveterate leprosy, for a little Leaven leaveneth the whole Lump. 1 Cor. 5.6.  F. 
I see now clearly that there is Precept and Rule enough to deal with, yea to withdraw from every member that marrieth contrary to Gods Law. But I pray satisfy me a little farther, may not the Church forgive such that so sin( if they repent, and are sorry, and do confess their sin,) embrace them, and take them into their Communion again.  E. 
True Repentance, hath not only these parts in it, sorrow and confession, but a forsaking of the sin, abhorring it, and himself for committing it. He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but who so confesseth and forsaketh them shall have Mercy. Prov. 28.13. There will not only be( where Repentance is true) a confessing of the sin committed, but a forsaking of the sin also, without which, there is only an outward show of Repentance, but in truth, and reality there is none, nay there can be none, acceptable to God, nor ought to be none acceptable to the Church, such Repentance can be but feigned, and hypocritical, for who doth( can it be supposed) repent truly and sincerely, of his Marrying contrary to the Law of God,( at least if he yet meet with no disappointment) though he with his Lips doth confess that he hath sinned, yet in his heart he is glad that he hath got a Fair and Beautiful Wife, or if not a fair one, a Rich and Wealthy one, a great or a good fortune, as some call it, or at least one that he loves, and that pleaseth him, and he goes home and rejoiceth in her, notwithstanding, and continueth in the Sin still, this can be no Repentance but feigned sorrow.  
Secondly, When a man hath sinned, and doth confess it with some show of Sorrow for his sin, his Sorrow and Confession doth not make that which was sin before, and when he confesseth it, to be no sin, when he hath acknowledged and confessed his sin, as for Example, Drunkenness is sin, and there is a man called a Brother that is a Drunkard,( we will suppose) and he is admonished by the Church, and it may be withdrawn from, he then saith, he is sorry he hath sinned against God, will this his acknowledgement and confession alter the sin of Drunkenness, and make it to be no sin unto him for the future, but rather a virtue, no sure, no wise man will so say, and that he may be drunk as oft as he will, and remain a Drunkard, because he hath at some time or other confessed( with some show of Sorrow) that he hath sinned, no this cannot be, the sin is the same, and as abominable as it was before he shewed such Sorrow, and he is( if he liveth in the sin of Drunkenness,) altogether as much a Drunkard as he was before his sorrow and confession, and to be denied communion with the Church. For,  
Thirdly, if the Church should receive him, and take him into their Fellowship under the pretext of his Repentance, he once manifested to them,( notwithstanding he still lives in the sin,) he then sins with their approbation and allowance, and thereby the whole Church will become guilty of his sin, because they allow him in it, without any farther reproof; be not ye therefore partakers with them, Eph. 5.7. Neither be partakers with other mens sins, keep thyself pure. 1 Tim. 5.22. The Church may yea doth partake with him in his sin, by consenting, he should live in it, such a thing the Lord reproves, Psal. 50.18. When thou sawest a Thief, then thou consentest with him, and hast been partaker with Adulterers, men may be guilty of other mens sins when they consent, and give their allowance to them to sin, even so the Church doth become guilty of the sin of any man, or of any sort of sin that is committed by any Member thereof, by the allowance of that Church to whom the Sinner belongs, and thereby that Church doth not keep her self pure but is defiled, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 1 Cor. 5.6. this is true, and will hold good in the sin of Drunkenaess, Mixt-Marriages or any other sin whatsoever.  F. 
What must they do then, that have married sinfully, if their confessing their sin, and being sorrowful for the same will not be sufficient to the Church, and if they may not receive such offenders into Communion again.  E. 
Such that so sin ought greatly to mourn, and to humble their Souls for their sin, they have committed against God, all their days, and not as Mr. T. adviseth, to go to other Congregations where they may( the more is the shane and pity) be Received, but still humbly with contrition of Spirit wait upon God and the Congregation where they do belong, and have walked with, in the Fellowship of the Gospel, bearing the Punishment inflicted on them for their sin, patiently saying, I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him. Micah 7.9. And so wait upon the Lord, sitting under the ministry of the word until a Door may be opened by the Lord, of Repentance effectually and sincerely, wrought in him even that Godly Sorrow, never to be repented of, and the mean time let him see that his Conversation in all other things be circumspectly, Holy and Pious, that so God peradventure might bring his unbelieving wife to the knowledge of, and obedience to the truth, and so be brought out of mystery Babylon into the Church, to walk in all the Ordinances of the Gospel blamelessly, this he should do, which if he do not he will add more sin to sin, and thereby provoke the Lord more to Anger against him, and then namely if his Wife be converted, there may be( if he hearty repent,) an admission of him into Communion with the Church again. Agreeable to the Mind of God, the Churches satisfaction and his Comfort, Joy and Peace, and the Church keep her Virgin purity, unspotted and undefiled, which otherwise she cannot do, as I have shewed above.  F. 
I see this must be the way the Churches ought to take, 
Fol. 42.  but Mr. T. affirms, that God at all times did bear( upon occasion) with the breach of his positive Law.  E. 
Yea he doth say so indeed, but with little show of verity, he gives for his instance Davids eating of the showbread, and the Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn, but doth not our Saviour justify his Disciples namely in their plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath Day, by Davids eating the showbread he being an hungry, and sure our Saviour( he will not say) doth not justify one evil by another,( namely his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn) either in the breach of a Moral or Positive Law, by Davids eating the showbread, which indeed was unlawful for him to eat, had not the circumstance he was under at that time excused, and for that cause, though God did bear with David, it doth not follow that the Church may take upon them to do the like without warrant from him, much less to bear with sinful Marriages, which God so positively forbids. And hath time after time manifested his indignation against by his severe Judgments, poured out upon the Offenders; yea a sin which the Spirit of God in the Scripture calleth Fornication: and likewise in the case of the Gibionites much like the same may be said, considering the circumstances, for they namely the Gibionites wrought deceitfully with Joshua, and the Princes of Israel, as the story relates, and it being so, they namely Joshua and the Princes were not blamed by the Lord, it being no wilful disobedience in them, or breach of Gods Command, and I hope God may anticipate his own command without leave first, had from any man, and men not presume to do the same without a warrant from him in any case, touching his commands, and though the People did murmur against Joshua and the Princes of Israel, yet were they contented, when Joshua and the Princes  told them they should be Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water unto all the Congregation; Josh. 9.21. And moreover Joshua cursed them for their deceit used by them,( as you may there red) in beguiling him and the princes by Lying and Dissimulation; ver. 22.23. And Joshua made them that day Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water for the Congregation, ver. 27. all which sheweth that Joshua doth not justify what he and the Princes had done in Swearing to these Gibionites, yet being done it could not be undone, because of their Oath; though as much was done namely by Joshua to the Gibionites, as was sufflicient to demonstrate his Heart upright, and no ways started aside from the Law of his God, and therefore we cannot see( by all this talk he hath made) unless he had shewed it more plainly that as he saith, a Church is sometimes bound to bear with the breach of a positive Law, for if it should be granted, that Almighty God did in those things he mentioneth, bear with the breaking of a positive Law, yet doth it not prove, that therefore his Church is bound to do the same, without leave first had from him.  
Secondly, if the praying for superiors be neglected, and the Church do not deal with any for that neglect, it doth not therefore follow that the Church is bound to bear with any man that neglects a duty positively required, for that Mr. T. affirms, nor if the Church do not deal with any for their neglect of contributing to the Ministry, it doth not follow the Church is bound by any Law of God to bear with such neglects, it may be the Churches sin not to deal with such Members, and they far from being bound to bear with them, except the Church be poor, and cannot contribute any thing at all, or not so much as need requires, and in such a Case God doth not require it. 2 Cor. 8.11, 12. Or if the Minister will make the Gospel without charge, 1 Cor. 9.18. And will labour with his own hands, 2 Thes. 3.8. As the Apostle saith he did, Act. 20.34. And shewed the Elders how they should labour as he did; ver. 35. Now in these cases it may be no evil in the Members, not to contribute namely to the Ministry, though an Ordinance of God, nor no bearing of the Church with the breaking of a positive Law.  
And lastly whereas Mr. T. offers some few things as he saith to consideration, I shall offer as many to him which may serve, as an answer in some sort to his.  
First, consider the Yoke of Christ is easy, and his Burden is light; Mat. 11.30. And this is no more; nor other Yoke then Christ hath( not we) put upon his Disciples. 1 Cor. 6.15.16, 17, 18. Chap. 7.39. 2 Cor. 6.14 Rev. 2.14. ver. 20. 1 Cor. 10.8.( Which is the thing we contend for, namely that Believers should mary with Believers) but to be unequally Yoked together with Unbelievers is a Yoke indeed hard, and heavy to bear, as many have found by sad experience, as I do now know some, and have in my time known many more, but them who obey the Lord do find this yoke easy and light, sweet, Pleasant peaceable; and much joy and comfort they have found therein, as many can witness, and if the women, and Maids( many of them) have none in the Church will take notice of them, at whose Door will it lie but at Mr. Tory's, who hath taught the men to look abroad in the world for Wives Rich and beautiful, by which means, they being taught so to do, they will not take notice of the poor women in the Church, though they be virtuous and pious, but will. take all worldly advantages they can, and thereby the women go without Husbands, except by temptation( as too many do) they make a breach upon the Law of God.  
Secondly, Let Mr. Tory and all others of his mind, consider how ridiculous not only to the Rude and profane, but to the sober minded, the Presbyter and the independent, the denying of the Baptizing of Children, and the Dipping of Believers is, as many of them have manifested in their Printed Books, set forth in opposition to the one, and in confirmation( as well as they could) of the other, what do the Presoyter and independent say to this, do they think you do well, and do they look upon you as wise men, to dipp in water such Persons as sometimes comes from them to you; do they think it good dealing, that you should take from them such as they esteem, or at least did esteem faithful and Upright, and also rightly baptized in their insancy, and baptize them again,( as they count it) do they not think you are not only besides the Truth, but your Wits also, especially when you shall Baptize them in Winters Frost and Snow, to endanger their Health, if not their Lives thereby, as they think, nor will it be sufficient for you to tell them you have a command; in Mat. 28.19. For they will tell you, that the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, will justify the Baptizing of Children, and therefore your Baptizing of Adult Persons is ridiculous, erroneous and sinful, but we must not seek the praise of men, for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that Circumcision that is outward in the Flesh, but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and Circumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit, and not in the Letter, whose praise is not of men but of God. Rom. 2.28.29. For if I yet please men, I shall not be the Servant of Christ. Gal. 1.10. See 1 Thessa. 2.4.5.6.  
Thirdly, Let Mr. T. consider, how he doth lay a stumbling block( like as Balaam did) in the way of Members, both men, and women, in teaching them as he hath done in his book, to mix themselves in Marriage or Wedlock with unbaptised Persons, and so cause them to sin and transgress against God, as for the Truth, if any stumble at that, the cause is their Unbelief, and for them who cannot deny themselves this world and worldly pleasures and advantages for Christs sake, and bring their hearts wholly and fully over to him, and be content to be subject to the Lord, in doing the things he commands to be done, and in not doing that which he forbids them to do, will not be a true Disciple of Christ, and a many such there are now a days, who are as unfit to be Church Members, as they are short in being the true followers of the Lord, and truly good it is for all men, to be well advised, when they enter into Gospel profession, and for them to consider all the cost, and not to turn hand over head, about the weighty matters of Eternity, for he that setteth his hand to the Plough, and looketh back is unfit for the Kingdom of God; Luke 9.62. It is good to Remember Lots Wife, Luke 17.32. For it had been better for them, not to have known the way of Righteousness, then after they have known it, to turn from the Holy Commandment delivered unto them. 2 Pet. 2.21. For those that are not well advised, and who expect to advance their fortunes in the world,( will not it's to be feared) bear to be hated by the world, persecuted, and have tribulation in the world, as Christ hath foretold his Disciples shall, John 15.18.19. Chap. 16.33. And such the Church is not like to have much comfort in, nor the poor much relief from.  
Fourthly, Let Mr. T. consider what account he will be able to give in the day of the Lord, if all he hath writ in vindication of Mixt-Marriages be( as it is) grounded upon Error and mistake, when he hath taught and published in print the Israel of God to comply with Balaams Doctrine, in that part of it, namely to mary with the Daughters of the great Whore,( if he doth not teach them also in word and practise, to comply and join with them in some part of their worship,) for all which he pretendeth to have the Word of God to warrant what he saith, when the Lord hath not spoken by him, neither in the one, nor the other, in which he hath grieved many, and caused others to turn aside, and harden their Hearts against Church Admonitions and Censures, by teaching them Rebellion against Christ and his Church, and by labouring to persuade sinners that the Church hath received no power from Christ, to withdraw from them for their sin, then which nothing can be more false, but as for the Church, she having a Rule to deal with such sinners, would not be able to give account in the day of the Lord, if they have amongst them those that hold such Doctrine, much less, if they have and suffer those that put such Doctrine into practise. Rev. 2.14.20.  
And Lastly let him consider, that he hath used the name of God, to open one door to let in sin by the great, and shut another door to keep the sin and sinner in the Church, and by that means( as much as in him lieth) hath shut them out of Heaven, for their impenitency, there being nothing else will do it, as for the Censures of the Church duly and justly executed, they are not in themselves a means to shut any out of Heaven, as Mr. T. saith, the end of them being no other then the Destruction of the Flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 5.5. Then is it no presumptuous zeal as he is pleased to call it, for I have given both precept and example to warrant the Churches dealing with such Sinners, and therefore it will become him, and the rest of his Brethren, that are of his opinion, to consider well of these things, and not to suffer the Love and desire of Friendship they have with the world, to transport them, nor prepossess their Judgments, from retracting any thing that doth appear to be to the prejudice of the Truth, and the peace and purity of the Church, which every sincere Christian doth desire, and will labour to preserve.  F. 
I thank you for this pains you have taken to satisfy me, I pray God it may be a means to prevent those growing evils that are crept in amongst professors in this Perilous Day, that God may divert those Judgments, which are threatened against us, for the sin of his People.  E. 
I desire the same, and with all may God so bless my Endeavours to his Glory, and the purging of the Church, I have my end.  F. 
Had Mr. T. laid such a Foundation as you have done, his Appendix had been suitable and proper, had it not?  E. 
Yea, but he first takes away or at least undermines the Basis of his Appendix, and then he builds up his caution, and advice to the unmarried upon it,( though what he saith therein doth notoriously contradict all that he saith before,) but to what purpose is his advice, to them it is directed to, since he gives them the whole world to choose Wives or Husbands in, those cautions that comes out of the same mouth, that gives them liberty to mary any one whom they please, telling them it is no violation of Gods Law, no evil in itself, nay that there is no Law to prohibit them: what restraint can that put upon any that are minded to make use of his encouragements, men and women in the world are generally of this mind, that they will as near as they can get them Husbands and Wives that are Fair, Rich, have good conditions, are of a good nature, affable, sober and the like, this propencity is in most People, though they mind not Religion in their choice, and that they will pursue, if Mr. T. had not advised them, and therefore although the advice may be good in itself,( most of it) yet from him it is little more then to show, that Mr. Stephen is against Mr. Tory, and that they are in some sort divided about one and the self same thing, and do not agree in their Judgments, what I say is not that I would, that any of the Lord's People should slight or reject any good advice, but rather that they would follow them, not as his advice only, but as it is grounded upon the Law of God, arising not from prudence and policy only, as Mr. T. hath in his vindication affirmed, but from his Positive prohibitions as I have shewed, and then I hope his Appendix may prove no snare to any, but rather be a means( whether he intended it should or no) to keep the Unmarried from breaking through the limits and bounds that the Lord hath set them, and to cause them that have Married contrary to the mind of God, greatly to humble themselves under his mighty hand for the same.  F. 
I have given you this trouble to the end I might be satisfied, and others also, and that their might be a stop put to the growing greatness of that sin, namely Mixt-Marriages, and I hope God will bless your labours, and cause the fruit of them to be an effectual means to purge the Churches,( at least some of them) from that defilement.  E. 
I pray God it may, and then I shall have cause to be thankful, that his Church be presented as a chast Virgin to Christ, which I greatly desire may be, and which is my end, as God knoweth.  
I will now take my leave of you Brother, desiring the Lord may cause you yet more and more to increase in Grace and Knowledge, through Jesus Christ our Lord, unto God our Father be Glory in the Church, by Christ Jesus throughout all ages world without end.  E. 
Amen, Fare ye well.   

A Word to those Congregations in general, who allow of Mixt-Marriages  
BRethren, I cannot pass this opportunity, and occasion, which now presents itself, but must in short discharge my trust, and a good Conscience towards you, whether I love you or no, and desire your present prosperity in Truth, Peace and Purity here, and Eternal Happiness hereafter, in what I shall say, Almighty God can only witness for or against me, I have that testimony in myself that I greatly long after you, and desire your welfare in the Lord, and could gladly spend, and be spent for you, though the more I love you, the less I am loved by you, and how much I have been grieved and in secret have mourned and with what fervency I have prayed, and still do, both in public and private for you, the Lord knoweth, and many can witness; yet notwithstanding I know my Reward will be from some froward, and unmortified Spirits, no better then unkind reflections, with unchristian, uncharitable and rash censures, but however those things give me no discouragement, nor shall cause me to desist from any thing, may be hopefully a means to call you back from your declensions, to your first Love and works, I have seen to the grief of my Soul( which you have not regarded nor taken any care of) that you have defiled yourselves, and corrupted your way in suffering the Doctrine of Balaam to be held, taught, and put in practise amongst you, namely Mixt-Marriages, Believers to be unequally Yoked together in Marriage with Unbelievers; which you in your Consciences have known, and have bore your testimony against with much zeal, as being a sin and Transgression, but now being perverted, I fear by your too much Love of the World, and delighting in the modes and fashions thereof, which you once protested against, and separated yourselves from, hath made you so easy to be seduced, and turned aside from your Virgin purity and chastity, and not to keep out that sin, nor now it is got in, you suffer it and indulge it, and do not reform such enormity, by which you are, even the whole body defiled, you being partakers with them in that sin, in that you keep them in your Communion at the Lords Table; which by your so doing they continue in their sin, cum privilegio, and by allowance from you. And that you have long since inclined hereunto,( being seduced by the fair pretences of some whose minds were corrupted in that matter) as appears by your consenting to the passing of two decrees, or Church agreements in order thereunto, the First was to this effect, that no Member should call or give Mixt-Marriages the name of Fornication, which is the proper name the Spirit of God doth give it, as I have shown from 1 Cor. 6.15.16, 18. Chap. 10.8. Rev. 2.14. Which I pray you carefully consider, this no doubt was the first step to the introducing of that sin, for, to take away the name of a sin which makes it look with a soul face, and sheweth the true and proper colours of it, is the ready way to incline Members both Men and Women to make less Conscience of it, and in time make none at all, the Second decree was, that those Members that did mary contrary to the Rule of Gods Holy word, should upon the acknowledgement of their sin, and sorrow for the same, be Received into Communion again, or to this effect, this was another step to incline Members so to mary, and to break down the bounds that hedged up the way of that sin, for who would keep himself pure from this defilement, when any carnal and worldly advantages do offer themselves, that is set so light by, that an outward confession and show of sorrow shall not only make his peace with the Church, but shall also give him their approbation and consent that he shall now continue in his sin, and enjoy his Communion with them also, and by this means the way is stopped up, by which the sinner and sin should go out, and be separated from the Church; these inventions and traditions of men( for no other name can I give them) contrary to the mind of Christ was the product of your Primary defect, and procidence from your pristine integrity, and that good order you once pursued to keep this( with some other evils) out of your Camp; For the leaders of this People cause them to err, and they that are lead of them are destroyed. Isa. 9.16. And now at last you are so far from reformation, that you have suffered Mr. T. to publish to the world an absolute defiance against the Unlawfulness of Mixt-Marriages, and the Churches power to deal with any that shall Transgress, proclaiming to all the Churches both in City and Country that it is no sin, no evil in itself, contrary to no Law, and therefore lawful, and likewise that if it be a sin, the Church hath no Precept, nor no Example, and therefore no power to withdraw from any for so Marrying, so that what was done by you before in your agreements, though they were of the same unsteady, yet now he hath spoken plainly, what you in those agreements spoken but darkly, and unto his, you have rather writ Imprimatur then any ways made it your endeavour to detect his Errors, it being thus with you as is too apparent, your practise being sufficient proof, I can do no less then admonish you of these evils and defilements, that now seem to stick fast unto you, and to call upon you in the Name of the Lord to repent, and reform of those great evils and pollutions that are amongst you, before it be to late, and that you labour to work such a reformation as will be pleasing to the Lord, and also demonstrate to all, the Truth of your Repentance, and amendment, this I speak is in love to your Souls how ever you will take it, and in discharge of my Duty to God and you, and therefore whether you hear or forbear, I have discharged my Conscience in the sight of God, and shall not cease praying for you, nor to be willing to serve you in the Lord.  
I. G.   

A word to Mr. Tory in particular.  
BRother I have perused your Book, which you Entitule Mixt-Marriages Vindicated, without any prejudicate opinion to yours, or partiality to my own persuasion, and have compiled an answer with as much candour and cordial love to you and the truth, as you could have in publishing your Book, and therefore I hope it will find acceptance with you, so far as to give it a diligent serious and impartial speculation, and show it the kindness of a moderate correction and detection, if you find it merit nothing else from you, but if not, I then hope and am so charitably persuaded of you, that you will retract your own opinion, and Book.  
I cannot but here remind you of the greatness of those evils that lie couched in your Vindication of so great a sin as Mixt-Marriages is, and how much disservice you have done the Churches thereby, the which I hope upon a second serious and deliberate view you will see.  
First, I cannot but note, and put you in mind how prodigiously you were transported in your confidence, when you do often here and there in your Book boldly affirm that Mixt-Marriages is no sin, no evil in itself, it shall be a Snare to thee, but no sin in thee, and that those sayings you put as an Addition to the Word of God, when you in your very Title page. forewarn me and all other men, that we presume not to Add to the Word of God, in the words of Solomon; Add not thou to his Word, least he reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar. Prov. 30.6. And yet you stick not to do the same thing, for I pray where hath the Lord said, in the whole or any one part or place of the Scripture, Mixt-Marriages( which you vindicate) is no sin, no evil in itself, it shall be a Snare to thee, but no sin in thee to mary with the Nations, had the Lord in any place so said, as you say, you would not have been so unjust to your own opinion, nor so unkind to your Brethren, whom you would have believe what you affirm to be true, but you would have plainly in Capital Letters quoted, and set down that saying of the Lord, if there had been any, and directed your Reader to the Book, Chapter and Verse, where it was written, and besides, then you had put all out of doubt, the controversy had been ended, and the labour spared in answering you, I say, this is high presumption, for which you have cause to repent, and speedily retract.  
Secondly, I must take notice of your oft asserting, that God forbade the Israelites to mary with the other Nations, only in prudence, and policy, and that you make the ground of your presumptuous sayings it was no sin, no evil in itself,( as much as to say) to be disobedient to those Laws was no sin, suppose I should grant that those Laws were only prudent and politic, by whose authority do you undertake to affirm, that divine prudence and policy may at the pleasure of Mortals be disobeyed, were it no other then that you give as an instance, Deut. 20.19. In the case of a long siege, surely had the besiegers destroyed those Trees by cutting them down, which the Lord expressly prohibited they had sinned, though you presume to say the reason was not, because the thing was sinful,( adding to the word of the Lord,) but because thou mayest eat of them, when the Lords reason is this, for the three of the Field is mans Life, so may you as well say of that prohibition in Deut. 24.6. No man shall take the nether, or the Upper millstone to pledge, for he taketh a mans Life to pledge, and put in this as the reason, not because it was sinful, to take a millstone to pledge, but because the stones were to grinned Corn for Bread, and thus you labour to make the Law of God of none effect, by your Additions to his Word.  
Thirdly, For you at such a time as this is, and when Professors are many of them become Carnal, and do take liberty to commit several disorders, to publish a book to encourage them more, was( to say no worse) very great imprudence in you, had you published your cautions, or advice only, you might have done some service to God, and his people, but you having first with all your might and industry, laboured to remove out of their way the ground, and bassis of your council, by which only men are limited, and bound, namely the Law of God, your cautions seem to be nothing else but a vizard put upon the face of your book, that the uncomely make, and features thereof might not be seen nor observed, that so it might pass with little inspection, and so instead of delivering any from the evil of unequally yoking themselves with unbelievers, it may prove a snare to many, even your very cautions, by prompting them to mary with the greatest of Idolaters, provided they be but sober.  
Fourthly, I note your evil advice in your second Post-script, where you council such as are denied Communion for their sinful Marrying, to apply themselves to some other Congregation, where they may be entertained, council rather proceeding from Satan the Author of confusion, then from the God of order, by which you that advice, and those Congregations that entertain them, do thereby all you can to break Church order and discipline, and likewise harden the hearts of sinners against reproof, and Church censures, those Congregations making themselves Sanctuaries, and Cities of refuge, whereunto criminals may fly for to shelter themselves from the execution of Gods Law, provided as a punishment for their sin, the end of which is not as you insinuate, to shut them out of Heaven, but for the destruction of their flesh, that there Spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord; which Salvation you and those Congregations( as much as in you lies, by your council and their entertainment,) endeavour to keep them from: all these things you have adventured to do, against the word of the Lord, for which in the Bowels of Christ I exhort you to repent, you having been an instrument of much evil and confusion, that for time to come you may be a means, being converted to strengthen your Brethren, setting your heart and hand to the work of reformation, that God may have Glory, the Church purged from her defilements, and enjoy the Blessings of Peace and Tranquillity, which is the hearty prayer of  
Your Brother and Servant in Christ. I. G.  
FINIS;