The grounds and ends of the baptism of the children of the faithful. Opened…The grounds and ends of the baptisme of the children of the faithfull. Opened…

Whether the scruple of the Corinthians about cohabitation with their unbelieving yoke-fellows, did arise from the Apostles former letter, or not, it is not plainly expressed in the Text: But of the two, it may be gathered from the Text, rather not, then yes: For if their scruple had risen from the Apostles former advice, not to keep company with Fornicators (whether bodily or spiritual) he had fully answered that scruple before in the fifth Chapter. For there he expoundeth himself not to speak of the fornicators of the world, but of the Church v. 10.11. and for the fornicators of the Church, he doth forbid Communion with them, not only in the worship of God (as you would have him understood) but even in familiar civill converse, With such a one as is a brother, and a fornicator or the like, I have written to you, no not to eat with him, v. 11. where, not to eat is not meant ⟨p. 117⟩not to eat the Lords Supper: for that is the highest degree of the highest, and holiest communion in the Church: but not to eat common bread at one another's table, for he speaketh of the least degree of familiar society with such a one, saying, With such a one, no not to eat, but that by the way, to clear your mistake in that point. But for the point in hand, the Apostle had sufficiently cleared both his own meaning and the Corinthians scruple touching their civill society with their unbelieving yoke-fellows, in expounding himself, not to forbid them Communion with the fornicators or Idolaters of this world, but of the Church; whence it clearly appeared that their unbelieving yoke-fellows being not of the Church, but of the world, it was no part of the Apostles meaning in his former, or latter letter, to forbid them communion with their unbelieving yoke-fellows: So that if the scruple of the Corinthian had sprung from the mistake of the Apostles former letter, the Apostle had there fully cleared his own meaning, and withal removed their scruple: there needed no more words of it again here. It seemeth therefore much more probable, that their scruple arose from that other place which you mention Ezra 10. where the people of God are charged to separate themselves from the people of the land, and from their strange wives: which charge they obeyed also and fulfilled.

Whether the scruple of the Corinthians about cohabitation with their unbeleeving yoak-fellowes, did arise from the Apostles former letter, or not, it is not plainly expressed in the Text: But of the two, it may be gathered from the Text, rather not, then yes: For if their scruple had risen from the Apostles former advice, not to keepe company with Fornicators (whether bodily or spirituall) hee had fully answered that scruple before in the fifth Chapter. For there hee expoundeth himselfe not to speake of the fornicators of the world, but of the Church v. 10.11. and for the fornicators of the Church, hee doth forbid Communion with them, not onely in the worship of God (as you would have him understood) but even in familiar civill converse, With such a one as is a brother, and a fornicator or the like, I have written to you, no not to eat with him, v. 11. where, not to eat is not meant