Page images
PDF
EPUB

E

[ocr errors]

οδομων ἐν ὁδῷ θανάτε. Non adhaerebis ad cl qui incedunt in via mortis. The way of Lif is there taken for the Orthodox Communit It is called the Way, A&t. ix. 2. xix. 9, xxii. 4. And in the whole firft Epiftle of John, Light is appropriated to it, as I already obferved. And the word o frequently used in this fenfe I am now cerned for in the Hellenistical Authors.a πρὸς ἢ ἰδίαν γωαῖκα κολλά), 3 Efdr. iv. 1 1 Konawu wógvaus, Siracid. xix. 2. So co cerning Tobias's Matrimonial Affection to p rab : ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτό σφόδρα εκολλήθη αὐτῇ, τα τ vi. 17. And in the Canonical Writers:f oxoλanonσe ty zwani aut, Gen. ii. 24. This W is in the very Inftitution of Matrimony it fe Το κολλώμενο τη πόρνη in oppofition to the και fe λώμονα το κυρίῳ, as that fignifies the mylitt Matrimonial Union with Chrift, 1 Cor. vi. 17. Otherwife, in the New Teftament, and a in Clem. Romanus, it is taken for any very t timate Union, fuch as is indiffoluble. Thus it is a oppofed to falling away : Κολλήθηκε απότις, καὶ μὲ Soss, Siracid. ii. 3. Yet neither is this unt fuitable to Matrimony. The Bill of Divorc which diffolved Matrimony, is in the Helleni ftical ftyle, called Biciov Sosacis, Ifa. 1. 1. Jer. iii. 8. S. Matth. xix. 7. S. Mark x. 4. So it may be understood of Communion, and of all forts of indiffoluble Confœderations. And we do indeed find all fuch indiffoluble Friendships with those who were Enemies to the Peculium, blamed as well as Marriages. And feveral of the good Kings of Judah are upbraided with their Leagues with the Houfe of Abab, when polluted with the Piaculum of the Sidonian Marriage. Thus, under this general Notion of indiffoluble Friendships, Marriages will be in

cluded,

[ocr errors]

cluded, as being the moft indiffoluble Bond of Friendship. And the Phrafe Daváre, as it was understood in the Apoftolical Age of Barnabas, included all that were out of the Pecultum. The Peculium is, as I have fhewn, ftyled a Way; and a way to which Life was appropriated, as appears in the Reafoning of the first Epiftle of St. John. All therefore that are out of it, are fuppofed to be in the way of Death. Indeed in that Reafoning Life was only in the Aoy, and could therefore be expected by none but those who were united to the Aéy. But this was that, which, by the fame Reafonings, none could pretend to who were out of the true Communion of the new Peculium. But whether this were the defigned fenfe of Barnabas, or not; we find however, thefe Notions received and practifed too, at a very little diftance from the Apostles, without any the leaft intimation, that they were, even then, thought Innovations. The eldest Chriftian Latin Writer Tertullian, has written a whole Book on this Subject, L. ii. ad Uxorem. And this rather, on occafion of fome few irregular Practices than any formed Hypothefes in favour of fuch Practices: Quarundem exemplis admonentibus, c. I. So that the contrary Pretences were rather from Examples than Dodrines. He mentions one, who iftis diebus, at that very time, was guilty of it. He mentions alfo others, who were guilty formerly. By which we may perceive, that even fuch Examples were then very rare. He wonders at their petulancy, or the prævarication of their Spiritual Advi fers. This he could not have done, if he had known of any avowed juftification of fuch Facts by Principles. He denies, that they had any Scripture in favour of that Liberty which had

been

[ocr errors][merged small]

been taken by thofe few Examples of fuch berty, c. ii. Plainly fuppofing, that the Libe fo taken was not derived by an uncontradi Tradition. Had it been fo, Scriptures fho rather have been expected by which the L ty had been restrained, than by which it h been recommended. It had been abundantlyf ficient for fuch Traditional Practices, wh had been found in peaceable pofeffion, tha Scripture had contradicted them, as him fhews in his famous place, de Coron. Mil Here he is fain to guess what they had to for themselves from Scripture, rather than answer what was actually objected. Nunqui inquam, de illo capite blandiuntur, &c. c. 2. B all which it appears, that thofe few contra Examples were Innovations, and that the Pr dice derived from their Converfion was othe wife. He was not to feek for Scriptures co demning these Marriages, as being notoriou to all Orthodox Church-Members, though was as to what could be alledged for thofe f Withal and late Examples to the contrary. he grounds the unlawfulness and invalidiyo thefe Marriages on the very Topick I have been infifting on, the pollution of the Seed. Carnis fanita in carne Gentili inquins mentum, that is his Expreffion. But the beli nefs of the Flesh urged by Tertullian, is indeed a bolinefs derived from Abraham, but much greater than could have been derived from his Perfon, and fuch a one as excluded the Defcer dents of his Flesh, if they did not qualifie them felves for it by imitating his Faith, which very Imitation advanced them to the higher Digni ty of the new Peculium. They are faid to be the Membra Chrifti, the caro ad Dominum per tinens, c. iii. Both Phrafes are taken from the Apofile,

Apoftle, and agree to us as Members of Chrift's myftical Body, his Church and Spouse, on account of our mystical Matrimony with him. And they are no otherwife derived from Abraham, than as Chrift himself was of the Seed of Abraham, and as he was that very Seed in whom all Na tions were to be bleffed with the greatest mystical Bleffings which had been promifed to Abrabam. This could not have been derived from the Jews at any diftance from the Apoftles, when the Differences between the Jews and Chriftians were rifen to that highth that the Name of a Jewish Original was odious. It must have been derived from thofe Favours of Education, (not contradicted, but approved, by the new Revelations of the Gospel,) which the Apoftles themselves had from their former Jewish Education. This made them willing to fuperftruct the new Peculium on the old, in order to the making them one Holy Temple, as God defigned them. But this deriving the holinefs of the Seed from Chrift, could not have been derived from any unallowable Favour to their former Education, because it excluded all those who on that account kept up their National Animofities against the Chriftian Religion. Thus therefore it appears, that the firft Chriftians understood the Apoftles, and that they could not miftake their fenfe in understanding them fo. In S. Cyprian's time, it is reckoned among the undoubted Corruptions of their long Peace, that they did jungere cum Infidelibus De Lapf: vinculum Matrimonii, proftituere Gentilibus membra Chrifti. His Notions and Phrafe are the fame with those of his Mafter Tertullian, in that fame Church of Africa. Nor is it to be thought ftrange, because he derived them from the fame Originals of the Scriptures as K Tertullian

§. XLVI.

much to be re

garded.

[ocr errors]

Tertullian did, not from any human Teaching. What thofe Scriptures were, himself has fignified, L. iii. Teftim. ad Quirin. c. 62.

Thus therefore the Apoftles were understood The fenfe of la- in thofe Times, wherein they were moft likely ter Ages, when to have been rightly understood. These are the different from Times of greateft Authority, and which are to the first, not be taken for the Standards of all later, even, Antiquity. This Reasoning being decifive, I am not obliged by any exigency of my Cause to defcend to lower Times. Their very distance from the Originals, was a difadvantage for conveying Traditions Hiftorically. And for their Reafonings, they lay under many Disadvantages more in comparison of these earlier Times. Customs well known, when they were alluded to, were then antiquated. Words alfo muft, in procefs of time, have been altered from their original Signification. Befides the terms of Art appropriated by the Artists to peculiar and unufual fenfes, muft, at a distance, be very diffi cult, and not eafily diftinguishable from common Terms, when the Arts themselves were either forgotten, or neglected, or not so particularly obferved for this purpose, as they were in the Age of the original Authors. Withal, the grofs ignorance of the Tongues wherein the Scripture was written, and of the eldeft Authors that next fucceeded them, and their Tongue alfo, and the want of Critick for diftinguishing genuine Authors from Forgeries, in Ages wherein there were many Forgeries countenanced by great Authorities of thofe lower Ages, were ve ry juft Exceptions against the judgment of those later and more diftant Ages, for judging of the Doctrine of the firft Age. And the farther the Distance was, the more liable they were to these Exceptions. When therefore there was any inconfiftency

« PreviousContinue »