Page images
PDF
EPUB

fuppofing, that, if they had denied it, the Art gument would have been good for a Separati on. This he does in these words: The unbe a lieving Husband is fanctified by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is fanctified by the Husband: Elfe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy, ver. 14. The force of his Anfwer proceeds on this, That, in the judgment of thofe from whofe Principles the Ob jection was made, the holiness of either of the Parents was fufficient to make the Seed holy, and confequently to cut off that pretence for diffolving the Marriage drawn from the Duty which they owe to the Holy Seed. That this was fo he fuppofes evident, from their Practice in admitting Children born of fuch Marriages, to the privileges of the Holy Seed; that was, to Circumcifion by which Children below the Age of being perfonally profelyted, were admitted into the old Peculium, and to Baptifm by which they were admitted into the new. The contrary Argument would have proceeded more ftrongly against the Apostle, for the diffolution of thofe Marriages, if Chriftian Baptifm had been denied to the Children proceeding from them. That would have proved the Children unholy by our new Evangelical Law, and confequently the Marriage alfo, and therefore neceffarily to be diffolved. For fo it has appeared in the cafe of Ezra, that where the Children were rejected, the Wives were rejected alfo. So certain it is, that the Apoftles could not have excluded Children from Baptifm, as the Anabaptifts pretend. For the Objection concerned Chriftians principally, by which it ap pears, that this Argument from the Holy Seed was allowed among Chriftians. And therefore the Apostles Answer mult principally concern

them

them alfc. The Practice of the Jews appears from the cafe of St. Timothy. His Mother was a Fewefs, but his Father was a Greek, that is, a Heathen, as Few and Greek are frequently oppofed in the Reasonings of this fame Apostle in his Epiftle to the Romans. Yet St. Paul circumcifed him, A. xvi. 1, 2, 3. Here it was manifeft, that St. Timothy's unbelieving Father was fanctified by his Jewish Mother, and that even the uncircumcifed Sex was thought fufficient to intitle the Off-Spring to Circumcifion, exactly according to the Apoftle's Reafoning in this place. This was done because of the Jews which were in thofe Quarters, Act. xvi. 3. It muft therefore have been perfectly agreeable to their Sentiments. Otherwife it would not have gratified, but rather fcandalized them. Here therefore the Principles are allowed by St. Paul himself, as proceeding under the GoSpel alfo. And his Anfwers proceed only on conceffions of them who maintained thefe Principles.

Nor does he only give thefe Principles for §. XXI. a prefent end of gratifying his Adverfaries. He grants Himfelf does not only grant them, but Reason those fame on them, and juftifie their fevereft Confequen- himself, and Principles ces. Though he is not for diffolving thefe Mar- Reafons .on riages when Chriftianity found them in poffef- them. fion, yet he is utterly against contracting them by any who is already a Member of the true Peculium, and is as fevere against them when contracted, as the Principles now mentioned would oblige him to be. That he is against contracting them, his Words are very plain. He allows a Widow, when he is at liberty, to be married to whom she will: Yet with this exprefs limitation; Only in the Lord, ver. 39. To be in Chrift is to be a Member of his vi

§. XXII.

2 Cor. vi. 14.

19. and that

fible Body the Church. The fame thing it is to be in the Lord. For the name Lord is by way of appropriation ascribed to the fecond, as the name of God fimply taken, is to the firf Perfon of the Trinity. Thus the Ephefians are faid to be Light in the Lord, Eph. v. 8. As Light is reckoned among the benefits of the true Communion throughout the firft undoubt ed Epiftle of St. John. Thus being strong in the Lord, Eph. vi. 10. and standing faft in the Lord, I Theff. iii. 8. is being conftant in the true Communion. Thus the Governours of the Church are faid to be over us in the Lord 1 Theff. v. 12. In oppofition to our other Su periours, as we are Members of other Societies diftinct from that which is Spiritual and Eccle fiaftical. Marrying therefore in the Lord is the fame thing in St. Paul as marrying within the vifible Communion of the true Peculium, which he does accordingly confine Chriftian Widows. Tertullian obferves, that in thefe Words the Apostle changes his ftyle from Counsel to Precept, from Perfuafion to Command. To fhew, that if they will marry, they are not left to their choice of an Infidel Confort, as they are whether they will marry at all.

to

But the clearest and fulleft Paffage of the The Apostle Apoftle to our purpose, is in 2 Cor. vi. 14. Be alludes to the ye not unequally yoked with Unbelievers. This Jewish Law, place, in all likelihood, was occafioned by the de ire cafe propofed in the former Epiftle. He had Jos, Lev.xx. there fpoken against dissolving fuch Marriages, very pertinent when contracted before their acceffion to the ly, for over- Faith. This was very likely to encourage pro throwing Mar- feffed Chriftians to venture on fuch Marriages, riages out of which being contracted before, were thought lium. not inconfiftent with the holiness of their Seed. To prevent this, He feems to refume that Sub

the true Pecu

ject,

Et. The Words in the Greek are: Mi yivede Ιεροζυγέντες απίσοις. The word ἑτεροζυγῶν, in e Hellenistical fenfe, feems taken from Lev. ix. 19. where it anfwers the Hebrew ', which gives a Title to a Mifhnical Book. It there particularly applied to the yoking feeral Species of Beafts under the fame yoke, nd to the fowing feveral Seeds in the fame round. The Greek is in fome Copies rég uf, in others reef, in one word, as in St. Paul. Either way, the Verb in St. Paul will fitly answer it. It is common enough for Comedians, and Authors of Terms of Art, to form Verbs of one word from Nouns of two. Plainly the Apostle puts them in mind of their Law de Tufos, and their received mystical Interpretations of it. The Expreffion is not Μὴ ἑτερος αύζνυξε, but Mὴ γίνεθε ἑτεροζυγέντες. Be not fuch as are implyed in the Symbols of that known Law, de refs. This Reasoning he allows in other cafes as well as this. The not muzzelling the Oxe's Mouth that trod out their Corn for them. He does not suppose to oblige any Nation befides the Jews. But the myftical Interpretation of being grateful to all by whofe labours themselves were benefitted, in letting them share in the Fruits of their own Labours, he reafons from, as obliging the new Peculium as much as it did the old. So he proves it reasonable, that the Clergy fhould Share in the Ecclefiaftical Charity of which themselves were the difpenfers to the Ecclefiaftical Poor, I Cor. ix. 9, 10. 1 Tim. v. 17,18. By the fame way of Reasoning therefore, here he proves the unlawfulness of Marriages out of the Peculium, from the mystical defign of forbidding the irusa, which he supposes therefore to oblige the new Peculium also. His Reafoning

De Charit.
P. 712.

Reafoning in the other cafe, that God did not forbid the muzzeling the Oxen for the fake of the Cattel themselves, but to teach Mankind a moral Duty from which the new Peculium were not to be excufed, 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10. will proceed as strongly here as it did there, that the yoking different forts of Beafts was not forbidden for it felf, but with a defign upon the like abfurd yoking of Mankind. Marriage is commonly called a Yoke, and St. Paul's oúlvy faluted by him, is understood of his Wife, and that not improperly, by Clemens Alexandrinus. And the like unagreeable conjunction of Mopfus and Nifa, Virgil derides with the like Symbol of yoking incongruous Beasts: Fam Gry. phes jungentur Equis, Eclog. viii. v. 27. That is not all. The very few remaining Monuments we have of the myftical Interpretations received. by the Jews in the Apoftolical Age, afford us however, likely occafions for St. Paul's reafoning on this Matter as we find he does. Phi lo lived then, and he gives fuch an account of the mystical Reafon of this Precept, no doubt from Authors elder than himself, as might give St. Paul a juft occafion for applying it to Mar riages without the Peculium. He tells us, that the Beasts forbidden to be yoked were Oxen and Afjes. I fuppofe from Deut. xxii. 10. and the practice of other Nations, who were not under the like confinement as the Jews were, but were at perfect liberty to join what Animals themselves thought moft convénient for performing the Work defigned. And fo I know none fo likely to be joined with Oxen as Asses, for their equal native flownefs. This they then thought a proper qualification for the Plow, and, on that account, thought Horses as unfuitable for the Plow as Oxen for the Saddle. So the

[ocr errors]

Poet

« PreviousContinue »