Page images
PDF
EPUB

ufed it fo too, as knowing nothing of that other Law which he defends. In their fenfe therefore he does reckon himself among the ἄνομοι, voo, among those who are without Law, yet withal profeffing that he was not dvou, without Law to God, but evvou, under the Law to Chrift, 1 Cor. ix. 21. For, according to the two Peculia there were alfo two Laws, and he never denies his fubjection to the Law of the new Peculium profeffed by him. That is called the Law of Faith, Rom. iii. 7. in oppofition to the Law of Works. The Law of the Spirit of Life, Rom. viii. 2. in oppofition to the Law of Sin and Death. The Law of Chrift, Gal. vi. 2. in oppofition to the Law of Mofes. The Law of Liberty, St. James i. 25. ii. 12. in oppofition to the Bondage under the old Law, infifted on in the Epiftle to the Galatians. The Royal Law, St. James ii. 8. confiftent with Liberty in the Subjects, in oppofition to the deSpotick Monarchick Law, whofe Subjects are perfect Slaves. This diftinction between a Barind's and a Movesxs, long before Sir John Fortescue, was owned by Ariftotle in his Politicks. The Law which he owns to be good, Rom. vii. 16. in oppofition to the Statutes that are called not good, Ezek. xx. 25. This Law therefore of the new Peculium he always owns, and never countenances them who did difown it. In oppofition therefore to this Law of Faith it is, that he makes the άπιςοι to be ἄνομοι, which again fhews, that his prefent Difcourfe relates to the new, not the old Peculium. Thus the Antithefis is clear, that there can be no own where there is a profeffed avowed arouía. All Righteoufnefs does relate to a Law which must be fuppofed to have been fatisfied by him who is pronounced righteous by it. Even the Righte oufness

oufnefs of Faith must be judged by that Law which Abraham was under, when his Faith was imputed to him for Righteoufnefs. For Righte oufnefs is only a judicial Sentence upon application of the Law to a Fad that is to be tryed by it. But it cannot be expected, that any Court can give a Sentence in favour of him who denies the Law it felf by which they are ob liged to proceed, as the rule of all their Sen. tences. Now that which the Apostle denies between these two Extremes, is a Melox. That is, if I mistake not, that common participation of Conjugal Conforts, whereby each of them are intitled to share in what either of them have a right to. But Marriage feems to be confidered here, rather as a facred, than as a civil Contract: Indeed, principally as a facred one, the Jacred Contract being the foundation and fecurity of the civil one. As the interven tion of the God by whom the Matrimonial Vows are made, is that which in confcience obliges both Parties to performance of the Vows made by him. For thefe Vows, whereby they inveft each other mutually in their fingle Rights, are indeed the ground of the Plea each of them have to that which they could lay no claim to before those Vows were made. And the Reli gion of the Vows, and the Deity's Undertaking for performance of thofe Vows, was that which made thofe Vows fit to be relyed on. So that where this failed, the other muft confequently fail alfo, as being fundamentally grounded on it. So it must certainly, as to the Sacredness of the Obligation. Yet I do not know, whether the facred Part be not immediately refer red to by the Apoftle in this Reasoning. As the Wife, by paffing into the Family of the Husband, was to pafs into his Sacra alfo, thofe

§. XXIV. The oppofition between Light and

"

of His Family, and to be received into the protection of the Prefident Deities of their common genial Bed, with an obligation on her part to fee the Family Duties performed, if the would intitle her felf to the common Family Patronage. So Ephraim is faid to be μétox εἰδώλων, Hof. iv. 17. Sο μετέχειν ἢ ἁγίων, Εfa. v. 62. Meléxer to μorvoμu, 2 Maccab. v. 27. The im poffibility therefore of the elox between thefe two appears in this, that being six by the Law of Chrift required an univerfal Obedience to his Law, in the Confort profeffing his Religion. So Zacharias and Elizabeth are faid to be fixo, because they walked in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord, blamelefs, St. Luke i. 6. And that not only for themselves, but, on the Patriarchal Covenants, on which Chriftianity was fuperftructed, to which the Wives were obliged to comply, as paffing into the Sacra of the Husbands. Yet, on the contrary, the unbelieving Confort muft be fuppofed to difown this Law of Chrift, which was that of the new Peculium, what Law foever it owned otherwife, though it were that of God himself by Mofes. Though that were owned, yet ftill fuch a Confort would be Σπις, as denying the Righteou nefs by misis, (if Communion were broken on that pretence) and therefore vou as refufing to be subject to the Royal Law of the new Peculium. Which again fhews, that Marriages out of the new Peculium are they against which thefe Reafonings of the dpoftle are defigned.

The Apoftle goes on: And what Communion hath Light with Darkness? In the Greek; Darknels in Τίς ἢ κοινωνία Φωλὶ πρὸς ΣκότΘ ; This plainly relation to xot- feems to allude in the first place, to the xovid vavia, refers to the fame of Marriage. Thus the Prophet Malachy condefign.

cerning

cerning the Wife: Kai auτn xovavos σκ ii. 14. So Philo ; 'Αλλά μηδ' αλλοεθνές, φησὶ κοινωνίαν, γά px σwlibero, De Leg. Spec. p. 780, 781. So in another Hellenistical Author, the propereft for the Greek of the Scriptures: Ἐξάμησεν, έως άθησεν, εκοινώνησε βίν 2 Maccab. xiv. 25. Φως and

[ocr errors]

Exór are used in the beginning of St. John's Gofpel, and through his firft whole Canonical Epiftle, the one as a Symbol of the mystical Benefits of the true Communion, the other as a Symbol of the difconfolate miferable Condition of those who are out of it. There s is taken for the benefit of the xovavia with the Apofiles, as intitling to the xovavia with the Father and the Son, 1 John i. 3. as that alfo relates to the mystical ydu, fo frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. In St. John's reafoning, all who were in the true Communion are supposed to be in the Light. And this agreeably to his Principles. The xowvwvia with the Apoftles was, as I faid, a xovavia with the Son, who is the Ay. And he was the Light, St. John i. 6, 9. By communicating therefore with the Apoftles, they were made partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light, Col. i. 12. And Converfion to our Saviour, is a turning from darkness unto light, A&t. xxvi. 18. as be ing to him who was the Light to lighten the Gentiles, S. Luke ii. 32. S. John viii. 12. ix. 5. Therefore Baptifm is called Illumination by St. Paul himself, Heb. vi. 4. as well as by St. Fuftin Martyr. And the way of our Saviour is in S. Barnabas, called the way of Light. No doubt, this was to fignifie their communicating with good Spirits in general, the Heirs, as I faid, of Light. And indeed the Schechinabs, in which good Spirits appeared, were generally luminous Bodies. But the Scriptures men

F 3

tion

tion no darkness of the Vehicles in which evil Spirits appeared. How then comes it to pafs, that in these Reasonings Light and Darkness are fo immediately and neceffarily oppofed, that whofoever is not in the Light is for that reafon prefumed to be in Darkness? I fuppofe from the myftical Reafonings concerning the Light and Darkness between the Egyptians and the Ifraelites. In the plague of Darkness it is obferved, that the Children of Ifrael had Light in their Dwellings, Exod. x. 23. Wifd. xviii. 1. And the Pillar of the Cloud is obferved to have been a Cloud and Darkness to the Egyptians, but to have given Light to the Iraelites, Exod. xiv. 20. This Darkness of the Egyptians the Hellenistical Author of the Book of Wisdom, xvii. 21. owns as an Image of that Darkness which should afterward receive them. This is a plain evidence, that their Darkness in the myftical Reafonings of that Age, included the Darkness of this World, and the Darknefs of Hell, which is the exórrer in the Language of the New Teftament: Exactly as it is fuppofed to do in this reasoning of our Apoftle. Thus then it will appear, by this reafoning, that the Confort, which is not in the Light, muft therefore be in Darkness; and confequently as uncapable of any myftical vavia with the other, which is fuppofed to be in the Light as the Egyptians were of any converfation with the Ifraelites in the cafes now mentioned. Thus therefore it will appear, that the myftical part of fuch a Marriage must be null and invalid, as pretending to make a 1vwvía between things which are of their own nature axovávala, uncapable of any Communion with each other. Which will alfo proceed farther, to null the external Marriage alfo: So

far

« PreviousContinue »