Page images
PDF
EPUB

far at least, as the validity of what is tranfacted externally depends upon the ratification of the Deity, and the obligation fuppofed incumbent on the Deity, to ratifie it by Virtue of what is tranfacted myftically.

It follows farther: And what concord hath §. XXV. Chrift with Belial? The Apoftles own words So also the are; Τίς ἢ συμφώνησις Χειςῷ πρὸς Βίας; The Chris συμφώνησις of with common notion of vuqavia as it fignifies, and Belial. is here tranflated Concord, is a thing that ought to go before Marriage, where Perfons would expect any comfortable Event of it. But I take it here to have a farther fignification, fuch as is effential to the validity, as well as convenient for the comfort of the married state. It fignifies a confederacy between Nations that had been in Hoftility. Syria is confederate with Ephraim, If, vii. 2. All these were joined together in the Valley of Siddim, Gen. xiv. 3. concerning the five Kings entring into a League againft Chederlaomer and his Affociates. The Greek word answering the Confederacy in one place, and the being joined together in the other, is ouμovew. And fuch a pactional Agreement is certainly effential to Matrimony. But the Reasoning of the Apoftle makes fuch an Agreement null in it felf. Chrift and Belial are the Heads of the two hoftile Parties in our fpiritual Warfare. Belial is the name by which the Devil is generally called in the eldest Chriftian Monuments next the Scriptures. So he is called in the Sibylline Oracles, in the Teftaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the eldeft Latin Writers. Their Baptifmal Covenant was conceived in Military Terms, by which they obliged themselves to fide with Chrift, and to leave and renounce the Devil. As therefore any Leagues with the Enemy, or any of his AdF 4 herents,

berents, are Treafon in War, and can lay no obligation on the Perfon to performance, if made without the confent, nay against the exprefs orders of the General; fo alfo it must be in this cafe. No fubordinate Member of an Army can difpofe of himself without the General; and, if he do, he cannot expect his General fhould be obliged to ratifie what is done by him without his own Authority, or to quit his own antecedent Right in his Perfon. So it is in all Wars. Much more in our Spiritual Warfare, which is ov uncapable of any Reconciliation or Treaties in order to it. That is peculiar to the nature of this War, as it is to the nature of our God, that he will endure the Worship of no other God befides himfelf, which none of the Heathen Gods did feem to difallow. This overthrows all forts of ouμavnoes in the fenfe now explained, not only Agreements, but Treaties alfo, in order to the fettlement of Terms on which they might agree. Thus the Ifraelites were forbidden to make any Leagues with the Inhabitants of their Land, Judg. ii. 2. Exod. xxiii. 32. And this with a particular defign to keep them at a diftance from contracting Marriages with them, Exod. xxxiv. 12, 15, 16. Deut. vii. 2, 3. This God was pleased to carry fo high as to blame even the good Kings of Judah for contracting any Alliances with the Family of Ahab, though otherwife himself alfo belonged to the Peculium, when he had polluted his own Seed by marrying Jezabel the Daughter of a Heathen King and Prieft. Two Reafons are given for this care: One is, that they might not be concerned to wish their Welfare, when God fhould refolve to punish them; another was, that they might not partake of their Plagues, which

Thews

fhews the piacular Nature of their Guilt, which would involve their Pofterity born of fuch Marriages in a participation of the Guilt. Which made Pififtratus fo very wary of any Pofterity that fhould be common to him and the Alcmaonide, for fear of the Piaculum Cylonianum.

The Apoftle adds: Or, what part hath he s. XXVL that believeth with an Infidel? The Greek So the useiμερί thus; ἢ τίς μερὶς τιςῷ με απίσε; Here it again des of the Be liever and Unappears, beyond difpute, that this whole Ar- believer. gument, as managed by the Apoftle, concerns the new Peculium in contradiftinction to the old

one.

The very name of wiss characterizes the Seed of Abraham's wisis in oppofition to the Seed of his ads. And the Seed of his Flesh alone, without pretenfions to his wisis, will, for that very reafon, come under the name of TISOL, which is the word by which the Apostle denotes the condition of that Confort, which is by him fuppofed to be out of that true Peculium concerning which he difcourfes. Thus he who was in the old Peculium is notwithftanding, by him, fuppofed to be out of the Peculium he fpeaks of. On the contrary, he alfo who was out of the old Peculium on account of his want of Circumcifion, yet, as be lieving like Abraham, is therefore properly iss, and, for that reafon, properly a Member of St. Paul's Peculium. The word useis feems to relate to the Matrimonial Portion, but in a larger fenfe than we commonly understand the word Portion in English, or than the word Dos was understood by the antient Romans. That implies no more than what is brought into the common Family by the Wife; This implies the Shares on both fides, of the Husband as well as the Wife, and therefore the donum Antenuptiale alfo. Thus therefore the Reafoning proceeds

:

proceeds on the Roman notion of a juft Matri mony, which was alfo received by the Law of Nations of that Age. They did not allow the name of Matrimony to be given to every con junction of Men and Women that was just and allowable with regard to confcience. It was thought effential to Matrimony, that there fhould be Matrimonial Tables of Articles, and legal Stipulations for performance of thofe Articles on both fides. Those were for fecurity of the μseides on both fides, that they should go to the uses agreed on, in cafe either of Death, or of Divorce. Without these the Contract was rather Concubinate than Marriage, and did not properly intitle to the name of Wives in contradiftinction to that of Concu bines. This was that creditable fort of Mar-o riage to which Allufions are made in thefe myftical Reasonings relating to the mystical Union of the Deities with their refpective Peoples. In this way therefore of Reafoning the Argu ment is good, that there could be no valid Marriages where there could be no Contribu tions on both fides that might be fecured by a legal Settlement. In allufion therefore hereunto, and the mystical Matrimony between God and his People, God's People are said to be his useis, Deut. xxxii. 9. Siracid. xvii. 17. And on the contrary, God himself is faid to be the preis of those who are in the Peculium, Pfal. xvi. 5. lxxiii. 26. cxix. 57. cxlii. 5. But he is denied to be the uses of those who are out of the Peculium, Nehem. ii. 20. Thus it must follow, that the Infidel Confort can lay no claim unto him, whereas, by the Law of Marriage, each of the useides ought to be common to both of them. This Reasoning alfo fhews the nullity of the outward Marriage from the

impoffibility

[ocr errors]

poffibility of that which is mystical, as fundaental to it. I know very well that uses does ually relate to xxñg, A&t. viii. 21. And

at the Heathens make the divifions of NatiEs and Provinces between the Gods, to have en by Lots. And that God himself seems to lude to this popular way of fpeaking, when calls his own Ifrael the Lot of his Inherince, Deut. xxxii. 9. But whatever myftical eaning the Heathens had of that Phrase, is certain it could not be meant literally in e cafe of our Supreme Being and his Pecuum. It is derogatory to his Honour, that He ould condefcend to a fortition with his miiftring Spirits, which of his own Nations He would be pleafed to receive into his perfonal rotection. It was more eafily credible of the Heathen Deities, who were but finite Beings n the opinions of their own Worshippers. Our upreme Being, on the contrary, declares his wn People to have been chofen by him, and hat for their Forefathers fake. This would have been Optio, and extra Sortem, in the Language of the Roman Laws. Directly contrary to their way of dealing between equal Colleagues by Sortition. In this cafe therefore, the reafon why Ifrael is faid to be the Lot of God's Inheritance, cannot be any allufion to the proper way of difpofing of things by Lots; but, in the general fenfe, by which any thing which properly belongs to a particular Perfon is faid to be his Lot, however he comes by it: Only because the most common way of dividing Shares was by Lots. There can therefore be nothing peculiar in the myftical Marriage I am fpeaking of in this regard, but what was com mon to all the myftical Marriages of other Nations with their refpective Deities. But the Argument

« PreviousContinue »