Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small]

=

ANSE

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Widow (for fo I render it in my former Paper, tho' T. B. difany ingenuously affirms the contrary, that I only render it, a Widow) or Children is to be the nominative Cafe to that Verb plural, is to be determined not fo much by the Rules of Grammar (which wou'd allow either) as by the defigu of the Apostle here, and the Scope of his Difcourfe, which was to give the Character of fuch Widows as the Church was to maintain, and fuch as fhe was not to be Burthened with. The firft in v. 3. Honour (that is) Maintain and Provide for Widows that are Widows indeed, or without Children as well as Husbands, and have no Body to look after them. The latter v. 4. But if any Widow have Children or. Nephews (nyova Grandchildren) fhe is not then quite deftitute, let them learn to fhew Piety at Home in Maintaining their defolate Mothers or Grand-Mothers, which is a requiting of their Parents who had provided for them in their helpless Infancy. This plain Coherence of the Apostle's Difcourfe, determines the Verb plural pardaviTwoar to Children rather than to any Widow, and fhews that there is no fuch abrupt diverfion from the Subject unbecoming the Apostle's Wifdom, as T. B. would charge upon my Interpretation. My next Objection against T. B's vulgar Verfion was, that ureßeiv cannot be rendred by regere. This T. B. fays, he never mention'd nor intended. Then fay. I, he cannot Vindicate that Translation which hath fo rendred it. For tho' St. Hierome were a great Linguift and revifed the Latin Verfion, yet it hath had many Corruptions and Caftigations fince his Time, and needs more. And if any old English Translation favour this Miftake, however approv'd by Archbishop Cranmer as the best that could then be had, needed Amendment, and hath fince been Corrected, which can be no juft Reflection on our Translation, fince the vulgar Latin hath feveral times been Corrected, and is not without grofs Mistakes ftill. But did T. B. never mention or intend to defend the Verfion of voeßeïv by Regere? Hath he then forgot the time when he undertook from Scapula and Schrevelins, thus learnedly to prove it? E'u fignifies Bene, and oißw colo, and solere domum is Synonymous with Regere or Praeffe? Does he not remember that when I answered, apa fignifies colo only as Synonymous to veneror and adoro, he affirm'd it fignify'd colo in the utmost Latitude? When I reply'd what in the Senfe of colere agrum? He not only affirm'd it, but also afferted, That when a Greek Word was rendred by a Latin one, that Greek Word imported all the Significations of the Latin Word by which it was rendred. If T. B. pretend to have forgotten this, I have it attested by two fubftantial Witnesses, that this was his Difcourfe,

which

which is fufficient to convince him of Prevarication, in affirming this a thing he never mention'd or intended, However I defire T. B. to take notice, That I never intended to render urev by regere: Why then does he charge on me the Abfurdity of making St. Paul to call Children to Govern their Mother's Family instead of Obeying them? When I exprefly disclaim that Verfi⚫on, and contend that the Apostle calls them to fhew Piety toward their defolate Mothers, which is fhewing Piety at Home.

But allowing my Interpretation of the Apostle, concerning Children maintaining their deftitute Parents, yet T. B. undertakes to prove it of no Service to me. Becaufe, fays he, the Duties of Parents and Children are mutual. And fince I have granted that, I am bound to grant alfo, That this Text obliges Parents to Educate their Children as well as Children to Maintain their Parents; for Correlatives neceffarily infer one another. But if my Interpretation be allowed, does it not do me fome Service to have proved T. B. hath brought a very impertinent Citation? Suppofe one should undertake to prove, That a Servant ought not to Answer again, or faucily Contradict his Master, and should for that purpose alledge, Eph. 6. 9. Ye Masters forbear Threatning. Would not T. B. think it a very impertinent Citation, tho' Correlatives mutually infer one another, and the Duties of Mafter and Servant are mutual? I know T. B. hates my Parities, as expofing too plainly his pretended Principles or Inferences, but I muft beg his Pardon for uling them fometimes, when they ferve (as here) to convince him of egregious Trifling.

T. B's next Undertaking is to Vindicate his placing of Eleazar among Eli's Ancestors, by ftyling him not a Progenitor, but a collateral Ancestor. But I need no more to evince his Trifling in this Paragraph, than to repeat his Words in his firft Paper. Whereas, fays he, it might have been thought, that the perpetual Honour of Priesthood, had been fetled on Eli's Family, in confideration of his worthy and zealous Ancestors, Aaron and Eleazar, God justly rejects fuch a thought.

Now its well known there were two Families defcended from Aaron, that claimed the High-Priesthood, viz. Eleazar's and Ithamar's. Eli was of Ithamar's Family, how then might it juftly be expected, That the High-Priesthood fhould be fetled for ever in Eli's Family for Eleazar's Zeal, who was the Founder of the other Family? If Eleazar's Zeal were to be confider'd in the Cafe, it must conduce towards the outing of Ithamar's Family, to the haftening of Eli's Fall, and reftoring the other Houfe to the High-Priesthood, which for fometime it had been stript off.

So

Col. 3. 18.

So that whatever Heralds may fay of collateral Ancestors, Eleazar's Zeal as a collateral Ancestor of Eli, is very improperly urged in this Cafe. Befides, tho' we Read of Phinea's Zeal, as contributing fomething toward the Settlement of the High-Pricfthood in his Family, yet we Read no fuch thing of Eleazar.

So that upon this Review I leave it to the Judicious to determine, Whether T. B. did not begin his Reasons with two Mi-· stakes; which I thought fit to hint at in my Remarks, that the Gentleman, for whofe fake we Write, might fee this mighty Champion was not Infallible, fince he could Trip and Stumble in the very Threshold.

T. B's legal Syllogifm comes next to be confider'd. And if we diftinguifh in the Major, between authoritative and violent Controlling and Ufing fuch prudent and modeft Endeavours as becomes the Wife's Subordination to her Husband: And between controlling a Father by their own Power, and controlling him by a Power fuperior to his, even in his own Family, viz. That of the Civil Magiftrate; if I fay, we thus diftinguish, the hopeful Syhogifin is invalidated. For as a Chriftian Father ought to do what he can, that his Children be Educated in the Truth; fo a Chriftian Mother ought in her Place to take all Opportunities to inftil into them the Principles of true Faith, and to obviate the Corruption of their Judgment and Morals, by the Father's Infidelity or Heterodoxy, which was the Cafe of Timothy's Mother and Grandmother, for which they are commended. And fince a Woman at Marriage fubjects herself to her Husband's Authority only in the Lord, the no more renounces her Obligation to provide the beft fhe can for her Children's Salvation than for her own; which the Husband's Anthority cannot be fuppos'd to fuperfede. The Grandfather likewife may and ought to Endeavour by the affiftance of the Civil Power, to control a Father who would train up his Children in dangerous Errors.

But T. B. is refolv'd to be even with me for Perplexing him fo oft, and expofing his Arguments by Parities, and thereupon enquires, What I would do if it were my own Cafe. But first I deny the Suppofition, for I difapprove of two Things in the Cafe, as what I would never allow my felf no more than juftifie in another, viz. Marrying one of a different Religion, and Stealing a Wife againft her Parent's Confent. But fecondly, Let him fuppofe my Cafe in all Circumftances the fame with that under debate, and I will advife the Gentleman as I fhould think beft to do my felf. If I had ftol'n the Daughter of a Papist in a Popish Country, not only without the Father's Confent, but against his Re

folution

folution declar'd to me before-hand, that he would never Confent to Marry her to a Proteftant: If after the Marriage my Wife's Father alfo thinking himself oblig'd to appeal to the Government, thereby to prevent my Children's and his Grandchildren's Education in a way that he believes to be Herefie, fhould by the help of the Magiftrate take them out of my Hands, by procuring a Law to take the Education of my Children from me; in this Cafe I fee not how I could be juftly thought irreli giously Uxorious in a prudential Submiffion. Efpecially confidering what is owing to my Father in Law by way of Satisfaction for the Wrong I had done him, and my furreptitious way of Ufurping my paternal Right over his Grandchildren..

King Charles the firft advis'd the Parliament to make a Law K.Ch I Works for the Education of all the Children of Papifts in the Proteftan P. 101. Edit. Religion, as the fureft way to extirpate that Herefie from 1687. among us. The wronged Grandfather may and ought to appeal to the Legislative Power for fuch a Law, at leaft in the Cafe of ftoln Marriages with the Children of Proteftants. So that T. B. ought to confider how far Satisfaction fhould be made to the Grandfather to stop further Proceedings, which may prove more prejudicial to the whole Party of Romanists in England, than he is aware of.

T. B. fays, The Father-in-Law hath no Right to Control (1 fuppofe he would have faid Countenance) his Daughter in oppofition to her Husband's confciencious Will and Order. But I think he hath a Right to Appeal to the Magiftrate, and the Magistrate hath Power in this Cafe to control the Father.

But this T. B. Condemns in France and other Popish Countries, as an Arbitrary Intrenchment upon the Native Right of Fathers, and contrary to that firft Principle in doing as they would be done by.

Here it is worth Obfervation how eafily T. B. can fhift Principles to ferve a turn. Look into the following Papers, and we Part 1. p. 5. find him affirming it Charity in the Spaniards to Compel the Ameri- S. 4.7 cans to Christianity, tho' that were by most bloody and inhuman Violences. But now he is tender Hearted, and Condemns the Civil Magistrate's over-ruling of a Father in the Education of his Children, as very uncharitable. But if all the Methods used by the Spaniards to compel the Americans to Chriftianity were Charitable, fure if they had only taken away their Children from. them, and Educated them Chriftians, tho' against their Parent's confcientious Will, this would not have been Uncharitable.

So that I conclude ftill it is a bold Affirmation, and not yet: proved by T. B. That the Father is fo fupreme in his Family, that

neither

« VorigeDoorgaan »