Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A62455
|
An epilogue to the tragedy of the Church of England being a necessary consideration and brief resolution of the chief controversies in religion that divide the western church : occasioned by the present calamity of the Church of England : in three books ... / by Herbert Thorndike.
|
Thorndike, Herbert, 1598-1672.
|
1659
(1659)
|
Wing T1050; ESTC R19739
|
1,463,224
|
970
|
is evident that hee allowes them that which the Apostles had forbidden because it is evident that this is one of those differences which Jews by the Law were bound to make If therefore there be this difference in the Scriptures it is manifest that the leter of them doth not determine what obliges So again the same Apostle 1 Cor. XI 1-16 disputeth at large that men ought not but women ought to cover their heads at praying or prophesying in the Church For the intent whereof though it hath been the subject of whole books in this age I conceive I need go no further than Tertullians book de Velandis Virginibus who living so much nearer the Apostles knew better the custoÌ„ms of their Churches than all the Criticks of this time Hee disputes the case in question then whether Virgins had a privilege not to vail their faces at Divine Service by arguing that they cannot be excepted from S. Pauls words and alleging the example of the Church of Corinth where at that very time the Virgins vailed their faces at Divine Service as other women did Which whether it tye the Church or not at this time it will scarce be granted by those who now practice it not And in another place 1 Tim. V. 3-6 hee showeth that there was then an Order of Widowes whose maintenance hee ordereth to come from the stock of the Church as likewise how they are to be qualified and how imployed Of which Order there is no where any step remaining in the Church at â—resent though nothing be more imperative than the Order concerning it So the precept of the Apostle serves not to oblige the Church at present though by Scripture And if I may use the argument ad hominem upon the supposition of those that I dispute with who intend not to take any thing for true which I prove not as debating the principles of Christian truth it is manifest that the Apostle James V. 14. appointeth that the sick be anointed with oil together with prayers as well for the recovery of their health as for the forgivenesse of their sins Which it is manifest that it cannot appear not to oblige the Church at this time by virtue of that Scripture which injoyneth it And therefore to say nothing at present whether it do indeed oblige the now Church or not those that believe it doth not oblige cannot be able to give a reason why it obligeth not by the Scripture alone And this is the argument whereby I prove that the interpretation of Scripture as concerning mater of Law to the Church or the means to be used in determining what obligeth what not cannot transgresse the tradition and practice of the Church Because that which is propounded in the Scriptures as meer mater of fact may oblige and that which is propounded as mater of precept creating right may not oblige the Scripture not determining whether it intend that obligation to be universal or not For having showed afore that the Church is a Society instituted by God to which these Rules are given as Laws to govern it in the exercise of those Offices wherein the Communion therâ—of consisteth all reasonable men must grant that as the intent and meaning of all Laws is to be gathered from the primitive and original practice of that Society for which they were made so is the reason of all Orders delivered to the Church by the Apostles and by consequence their intent how farr they were to oblige to be measured by the first and most ancient practice of the Church which first had them to use Whereunto let us adde these considerations That the Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles were of necessity in force before mention can be made of them in their writings That the writing of them is neither the reason why they oblige nor a thing thereunto requisite but meerly supervenient to the force of them And that there is sufficient evidence that those motives to believe which the Scripture recordeth but cannot evidence are neverthelesse true and that the truth of those motives cannot be evident but by the Society of the Church which the said Laws do maintain For upon these conâ—â—derations it will appear necessarily consequent that as there be Apostolical Traditions which the Scripture evidently witnesseth so evidence may be made of them without Scripture The Rule of S. Austine how to discern what Traditions do indeed come from the Apostles is well enough known to be this To wit that which is observed over all the Church though it cannot be discerned when where or by whom it came first in force that is in his times by the authority of what Synod it was settled that must be deemed and taken to come from the authority of the Apostles themselves I will not use the terms of Synod or Synods because I conceive the Church was from the beginning by virtue of the perpetual intelligence and correspondence settled and used between the parts of it a standing Synod even when there was no Assembly of persons authorized to consent in behalf of their respective Churches Such things as became requisite to be determined in any Church being thereby so communicated to the rest as the order taken in one either to be accepted by them or redressed Neither will I say that the Rule is so effectual as it is true For I cannot warrant how general the practice of every thing that may come in question can appear to have been over the whole Church nor whether it may appear to have begun from some act of the Church to be designed by some place or persons or not which in S. Austines time I doubt not might be made to appear and being made to appear would maintain the Rule to be true Nor have I need of any such Rule as may serve to discern whatsoever may become questionable whether it come from the Apostles themselves or not It shall suffice mee here to presume thus much that no man can prescribe against any Rule of the Church that it comes not from the Apostles because it is not recorded in the holy Scriptures And therefore that nothing hindereth competent evidence to be made of the authority of the Apostles in some Orders of the Church of which there is no mention in the Scriptures Correspondently to that which was settled afore concerning the Rule of Faith that no man can prescribe against any thing questionable that it is no part of it because it is not evident in Scripture or because such arguments may be made against it out of the Scriptures which every one whose salvation it concerns is not able evidently to assoile And all this being determined I intend neverthelesse that it still shall remain questionable how farr these Orders of the Apostles oblige the Church Because I intend not to prescribe from all this that those Orders which shall appear to have been brought in by the Apostles may not become uselesse to the Church CHAP.
but for adultery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and maries another and he that mariâ—s her that is put away commits adultery Mat. V. 32. XIX 9. Mark X. 11. 12. Luk. XVI 18. it is pretended there p. 454. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospels signifies any thing that is dishonest and that what the State judges dishonest is just ground of divorce You must know that in our Lords time there was a difference which is supposed to be the occasion of the question made to our Lord between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai two great Heads of the Pharisees about the meaning and extent of the Law concerning divorces Deut. XXIV 1 which allows him that likes not his wife because he hath found or having found matâ—r of nakednessâ— in her to put her away For Shammai confined the intent of it to that which is dishonest and deserveth shame as nakednesse doth But Hillel extended it to any thing that offends the Husband as say they for example if she burn his Meat As for R. Akiba that allowed it if a man can get a fairer wife his opinion is but the inlargement of Hillels which expoundeth Moses his words If he have found in her mater of wickednesse to signifie either nakednesse or other mater besides This question then being on fooâ— at that time it is argued p. 478 that our Lord intends nothing else but the resolution of it the Pharisees demanding nothing else and therefore making no opposition to that which he resolves Mat. XIX 3-9 And thereupon great pains is bestowed cap. XXIII XXVII to show that our Lords exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to the opinion of Shammai For if we suppose our Lord to have spoke in that Ebrue which the Jews then spake and now we read in the Talmud and Chaldee Paraphrases then must he use the word which the Law useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gospels must translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If in Syriack the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifying the uncleannesse of the Stews is necessarily understood by the circumstance of the place where it is used to signifie all uncleannesse but may be extended to all sinne whereby we go a whoring from God as the Scripture uses to speak So according to this opinion our Lord excluding onely arbitrary divorce allows it where Moses according to Shammai allows it for any cause of dishonesty or that deserves shame as nakednesse does And if these premises be pertinent to that which follows that is to justifie those divorces that are made according to the Imperiall Laws related afterwards for the Author all the while protests to determine nothing p. 496. the inference must be this That those causes of divorce which Christian powers by their Lavvs have allovved or shall allovv are the true interpretation of that cause which Moses under the time of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or nakednesse our Lord of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is usually translated Forâ—ication alloweth I forbear to relate any more of that which is alleged to shevv that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of our Lord may signifie the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Moses according to R. Akâ—ba For the reason which I rely upon admits no consideration of it The resolution of our Lord is manifestly inconsistent vvith the Law of Moses and therefore with any interpretation that can be thought agâ—â—eable to it For when he saith Moses for your hard-heartednesse But I say unto you What can be more evident then that he repeals the provision of the Law and restrains what Moses had allowed Is it not manifest that whâ—n he â—llegeth that God having made first one man and one woman joyned them in mariage to be parted no more he granteth that Moses Law had abated of this and declareth the reviving of Gods first appointment among his own Disciples Can the allowance of divorce according to the Law stand with the primitive institution of Paradise more then having more wives at once Can we suppose the Pharisees come to our Lord to decide between Hillel and Shammai who condemns all Pharisees Or is it a marvail that he who pretended to be the Messias should introduce a provision differing from Moses and â—rom all that pretended onely to interpret his Law That there should be no further dispute of the mater of his resolution when there lay no dispute but about his authority whither from God or not Suppose our Lord to them no more but a Propheâ— to his Disciples the Messias why should they dispute that which they knew his Disciples admitted when they saw the primitive appointment of God related by Moses clear on his side That is to say why should they not be put to silence now as well as other times when they could not answer his allegations out of the Scriptures It is therefore utterly unreasonable to imagine that our Lord intending to restrain those divorces which Moses law alloweth should use a term of the same extent with that which â—e intended to restrain The Jews indeed insist upon this That a Prophet had alwaies power to suspend the obligation of any positive Precept for the time as Elias that of sacrificing no where but at Jerusalem Levit. XVII 1-9 Deut XII 5-18 26 27. XIV 21-26 when he sacrificed in mount Carmel 1 Kings XVII 22-39 But our Lord introducing a new Law instead of Moses his Law their aâ—cestors crucified him therefore and they to this day maintain it Indeed there is cause to believe that the Prophet Malachy reproving the oppressions which the Jews then laid upon their wives for the love of strangers which they had maried over their heads contrary to the Law Mal. I. 14. 15 16. propounds the liberty of divorce which the Law allows for an expedient acceptable to God as his own provision when he saith For the Lord God of Israel saith If thou hatest put away as the Jews there expound it For they who construe it The Lord God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away cannot give account why the Prophet should mention the mater of divorce where his purpose is to blame the oppression of Israelitish wives for the love of strangers maried against the Law Whereas when he addeth For one covereth violence with his Garment saith the Lord of Hosts He aggravateth the same fault by this consideration that the covenant of mariage signified usually in the Scripture by covering the woman with the mans Garment Ezek. XVI 8. Ruth III. 10. is imployed for a means of oppression and violence upon her that out of love entred into it And the Prophet Malaâ—hi holding his Commission by virtue of Moses Law how shall he say that God hates that which by his law he provided though for a remedy of further mischief There is indeed great dispute whither the allowance of Moses law did