Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

This makes fuch Marriages criminal, and therefore binders the Cafe from being qualified for Favour, without which there is no reason to expect that God fhould pafs by the confideration of an unholy Parent in favour of a finful Believer, finful in involving himself in that very cafe which was not remediable but by extraor dinary Favour. Not only fo, but the reafon why God had forbidden fuch Marriages, adds to the Sin it felf, the aggravation of Ingrati tude. It was, not only to fecure his perfonal Confecration from pollution, but also to fecure his Perfon from Seduction. And this Ingratitude for paft Favours, was certainly a very juft reafon to cut him off from all farther expectations of Favour for the future. But that which made these Marriages Nullities, was, that by Baptifmal Stipulations, God had acquired fuch a right in the Believer's Perfon, as made it not validly alienable without the confent of God, on whom that right was devolved by the Profelyte's own confent. This is implyed in fever ral of the forementioned Reafonings of St. Paul, and by the nature of that right as it is expreffed in the Scriptures. This right is fometimes reprefented as that of a Husband in a Wife, which even then, by the Roman Laws, was not thought alienable without the Husband's confent. With his confent it was, from the Example of the younger Cato, Úticenfis, who parted with his Wife Marcia to Hortenfius the Orator. The great opinion of that Man's exact Virtue, gave fuch an Authority to his Example, that from that time forwards it was practifed without fcruple, not only by the ill Emperors, but alfo by Auguftus himself. He alfo had his beloved Livia by the ceffion of her former Husband. Even on thefe terms the Be

lievers

lievers alienating themselves, not only without God's confent, but alfo against his exprefs.com mand, could not convey a valid Title. But the Law of Chrift did not allow even that berty of alienation by confent, but extends the obligation to term of Life. So St. Paul: I while her Husband liveth, fhe be married to nother Man, She fhall be called an Adulteres, Rom. vii. 3. Hence it is, that thefe Marriages are taken for Adultery, by Tertullian allo: Hac, cum ita fint, fideles Gentilium Matrimonia fubeuntes, ftupri reos effe conftat, & arcendos d omni communicatione fraternitatis, &c. ad Uxor. L. ii. c. 3. Which, hence appears to be no unwarrantable Heat, but a rational refult of Prin ciples then believed, and defervedly. The Mar riage was not only believed between God and the whole Body, but alfo with every parti cular Member of the Peculium. That feems to be implyed when the Apostle allows the comparifon, that as the Head of the Woman is the Man, fo the Head of every Man is Chrift, and that the Head of Cbrift is God, 1 Cor. xi. 3. Пlas arns is every Man, as well Separately, by himself, as in the whole Body of the Peculium. It is therefore myftical Adultery for any parti cular Perfon to yoke himself with an Infidel Confort. For this Marriage with God leaves us at lefs liberty than ordinary Marriages be tween equal Free-born Citizens. We are bought by Chrift like the Roman Wife which was made To by coemption, or like the Jewish Wife which was admitted to that Favour by her Mafter, from a Slave, Deut. xxi. 11. which was a cafe allowed alfo by the Roman Laws. Such a Wife as this was fo her Master's property, as that fhe could not chufe whether he would be his Wife, if it was his pleafure that the should be

[ocr errors]

4

[ocr errors]

1

fo. Nor was the allowed the liberty of Diorce, which, by the Jewish Law, was allowd to no Wives at all; and, by the Roman Laws, only to equal Free-born Citizens, not to Slaves, nor Liberta. By the Jewish Law the till continued her Mafter and Husband's proberty, unless himself were pleased to divorce her. Then, and not till then, the Law took place that obliged him, if he divorced her, to give her her Liberty, v. 14. Till then he had as much right to demand her, if any should receive her on her Elopement, as any other of his Slaves. Nor had the any more right than they, to make a valid Alienation of his right in her Perfon, without her Husband's confent. This is the Matrimonial Right that God has in us, as his Slaves, and as his Liberti, against whom even the Roman Laws granted the Patron an Adion that reduced them to their former Slavery, if they proved ingrateful. These are the terms of our Marriage with God. We are bis by conqueft of our inward, as well as our outward Enemies. We are his bought Slaves, on account of the price by which he has purchased and redeemed us. We are his by our own A&t in our Baptifm, like thofe Freemen who were permitted, by the Roman Laws, to fell themfelves, ad participandum pretium. On all these Accounts it appears, by all the Laws by which thefe Tranfactions of God with us were likely to be interpreted, and by which it seems to have been his pleafure that his defign fhould be interpreted when he expreffed his legal Tranfactions with us in Law Terms of fo known a Signification: It appears, I fay, that all we can do can make no valid conveyance of God's right in our Perfons to fuch forbidden Conforts, whom God, by St. Paul's Reasonings, has made

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

§. XLIV.

Tertullian is a

fo uncapable of any Matrimonial Contracts with us. At least, this will prove a Nullity in the myftical part of fuch Marriages, which will by neceffary confequence, in the nature of the myftical Reasonings, infer a Nullity in the ternal Marriages alfo, as depending fundamer tally on thofe that are myftical. The convey ance therefore being null, the Marriage mult be fo alfo. It will therefore be Chrift's Con fort ftill which lives in the poffeffion of his Ri val, which can be no other but myftical Adul tery (the moft finful fort of Adultery) fo long as the former Confort's right remains ftill in extinguifhed. This reafoning will again oblige fuch Conforts, by way of attonement for the Piaculum incurred by fuch invalid Marriages, to return to their former Husband, (as the Prophets exprefs it in the cafe of thefe mystical Adulteries, and to be feparate from the un clean thing, as in the cafe of Ezra, by fepara ting from fuch Conforts and their common Children. The reafon is manifeft, becaufe, they can neither ftand to their firft foederal Vow in Baptifm, nor their Matrimonial Contralt with God, till they do fo.

That there could be no Sanctification till the This Doctrine of Separation, appears from the Answers given greeable to the by the Priefts in Haggai, who were the proDoctrine of the per Judges of cafes concerning Sandifications Jewish Priefts and Pollutions. There one Queftion is, If one in Haggai, con- bear boly Flesh in the Skirt of bis Garment, and cerning Sancti- with his Skirt should touch Bread, or Pottage, Pollutions. or Wine, or Oil, or any Meat, whether the thing fo touched by the Skirt Should be holy? To which the Prieft anfwers, No, Hagg. ii. 12. Here we fee that there is no contagion of Sandification, even to things indifferent, which, in their own nature, are neither clean nor unclean.

fications and

So

[ocr errors]

far they muft have been from judging an holy Confort holy for being joined to a nfort foederally holy, when the holy Confort ift have tranfgreffed the decorum of its own tion, and a divine Prohibition, by admit. g fuch a Conjunction. The other Question : If one that is unclean by a dead Body, ch any of the forementioned indifferent ings, whether the indifferent things fo touch, fhould be unclean? To which the Priests fwer was, that it fhould be unclean, v. 13. We fee here the contagion of Uncleanness is ore eafie than that of Holiness. If therefore en indifferent things were made unclean by touch of that which was it felf unclean uch more muft that which is holy fuffer by . This clears the reafon, why holy Perfons re fo cautioned againft touching or coming ear any unlean thing; and, why Holiness is Fo often defcribed to confift in Separation. Becaufe the Contagion would ftill be in favour of hat which were Unclean: Efpecially, if the ouch were voluntary. The Law of the old Peculium interpreted it fo, even in involuntary Contracts, to put Men on the greater caution againft voluntary Approaches to what was morally unclean, which was the worse, and the more contagious Evil. And the touching concerned in the fubject of our prefent Difpute, is a voluntary undertaking an obligation for Coba bitation for term of Life.

rages were

Thus it appears, that the Law of God un- §. XLV. der both Peculia, was plain and full againft That thefe Marthefe Marriages. So it was underflood in the condemned in firft and pureft Ages. I cannot tell whether the first Ages, this was the particular defign of Barnabas, proved from where, among the Rules of the way of Light, Barnabas, Terhe reckons this for one: noxanthon 7 wo

[ocr errors]

tullian, and

S. Cyprian.

« PreviousContinue »