Page images
PDF
EPUB

it. Nor can he be prefumed to have defigned any fuch Contract that fhould oblige him to fuch a ceffion of Essentials, if the defigned to be his Wife, with the rights defigned for Wives by Law. If the fhould defign more, fhe can expect no ratification of her Ufurpations, either in Law, or Confcience, there being no prefumable confent of the Husband, when he should come to a right understanding of his own unalienable Rights. He cannot therefore part with this right, fo far as himself alone is concerned in it. But, much lefs can he pretend to a right of alienating this Right fo far as God is concerned in it. No, nor as his Forefathers were concerned. Both of thefe Rights are antecedent to his Matrimonial Contract, which therefore can convey nothing that would be injurious to them.

S. L.

nate it, on ac

him.

Firft, his Forefathers were, by their Patriarchal Right, invested with a power of obli- He cannot alieging all their Pofterity, and among them Him, count of the to perform the Conditions of their Covenants Right his Pamade with their Deities, whom they had cho triarchal Anfen for the Tutelars of their Families: And cestors have in this for ever, and even with regard to Confcience. The Husband therefore is obliged in conScience to ftand to their Ad, as he will intitle himself to their Blessing, and avoid their Curse, and enjoy the benefit of the Covenant which they have ftipulated for him. For this obligation reaches all their Pofterity, as well by Adoption or Incorporation, as by natural Def cent. That is, indeed, for the whole Body for which the Ancestors had ftipulated. This will oblige the Husband, in confcience, to keep the power of his Family Religion in his own hands, without which it is impoffible for him to fecure an unanimity of Religion even in his own Family,

[ocr errors]

Family, much less in the whole Body for which the Ancestors had undertaken. That alfo de pended on thefe Obligations in Confcience on the Heads of particular Families, and muft neceffarily be difabled for the End intended in the whole, if the Heads of particular Families be negligent in afferting or exercifing the Right for fecuring an Unanimity in Religion within their little Diftrids. I might add, that his Baptifmal Covenant in his own Perfon being fubordinate to that general one of his Ancestors, the Patriarchs and Apoftles, ought in reafon to be understood the fame way as theirs was, to lay an obligation alfo on him, in his own Perfon, to fecure an Unanimity in Religion within his own Jurifdiction, and therefore on no terms to part with his own power. Much lefs, with fuch a profpect of allowing different Religions in it. Yet here one would think, there should be no need of any Covenant whatsoever, to oblige a truly religious Perfon to hearken to no conditions of parting with the power God has given him to preserve the Unanimity of his Family Religion. The good-will he owes his own, his Wife as well as his Children, fhould binder him from allowing her a Liberty as pernicious to her as to himself, and to their common Children as to either of them fingly. Hisgratitude to God, his devoting to God himself and all his powers, fhould make him think himself obliged in confcience, fo to ufe this Power as may best enable him to give up his Accounts to him from whom he has received it. And he cannot doubt but God gave it for that very \end, that he might thereby provide for the fecurity of his whole Family the fame way as he does for his own.. However, this right of obferving the obligation of Ancestors, being one of

the

S. LI.

nate it, on ac

covenanted to

the Fundamentals on which even thofe greater Societies fubfift, and which ought to over-rule the fubordinate particular Societies included in them; the Husband cannot, for this reason, alienate this power of fecuring an Unanimity in his Family Religion, which is fo neceffary for the fubfiftence even of those greater Societies. But though it had been poffible for present Mafters of Families to alienate the rights of He cannot alie their Ancestors in themselves; yet it cannot be count of the pretended that it is fo to alienate the Right of right God bas God. And fuch a Right I have proved God to in it for fecuhave in them, not only by his abfolute un-ring the perfor bounded Sovereignty, (which is not here infift-mance of Duty ed on,) but alfo by the Stipulations of their Himfelf. Ancestors. I have fhewn, that they in covenanting for their Seed, undertook to oblige them to the performance of the Duties required by God from them by the means he had given them to oblige them, by the Bleffings and Curfes with which he had empowered Anceflors to oblige their Pofterity for all fucceeding Generations. This obliged all fucceeding Heads of Families, as fubordinate to the origi nal Patriarchs, to undertake the fame way, each for his own Family as the firft Patriarchs had done for theirs. And this being done in a Covenant made with God for performance of Conditions required by him, gave him alfo a right to the duty of fucceeding Mafters of Families, because their neglect of their duty would prove injurious to him. It would deprive him of the fecurity given him for performance of thofe duties which he had impofed on them as conditions of receiving the benefits of the Covenant ftipulated by their Forefathers for them. This gives him a right of inflicting those Curfes on them which were due to Faith-breakers,

and

[ocr errors]

and to violaters of Parental Authority, by the Rules himself had fettled for prefervation of that Authority. Nor could they expect an favour in fuch Inflictions, from him who wa injured by their unfilial Behaviour. It could not excufe them to fay, that they had parted with a right which was necessary for perform ing their own Duty. It would rather expofe them to a double Guilt, both of breach of their Covenant in admitting new Religions into their Families, and in divefting themselves of the Authority devolved upon them (by which they might have prevented the former fin of differ ing Religions in the Family,) with which God had intrufted them. This muft oblige them to undo what they have done of this kind, as null k and invalid in it felf, and tying them to no T thing but Repentance. The obligation God had h on them, was antecedent to that of their Wives, o both as derived from their Ancestors, and ratiof fied by themselves perfonally in their own Bap tifmal Covenant. It ought therefore to be per- P formed firft. And if it be fo, it will deprive th them of that liberty of themfelves which is ef m fentially requifite to make a fecond conveyance of that fame Right to their Wives. It is thence forwards no longer their own, but in trust from him whofe right it is, and cannot therefore be alienated without the confent of him who has intrufted them with it. If therefore they will expect any benefit of their Baptifmal Covenant, they must perform the condition of it, of taking care that God be worshipped rightly in their Families in that one true Communion into which themselves were Baptized. They must in order thereunto resume the Power which is fo necef fary to enable them to perform their own Du ty, which must confequently fuppofe the inva

lidity,

alidity of their alienation of it. The neglect of not refuming it, is not like many other Sins which are pardonable by the general indulgence of the Covenant, because they are confiftent with their being in the Covenant, and being thereby intitled to all the Covenanted Equity. But this deftroys their Claim to the Covenant in general which must therefore confequently ruin their Title to that Equity, which none can pretend to but they who are in the Cove

nant.

ed with him in

But there is withal a farther Divine Right §. LII. in the Covenant of the new Peculium, which He cannot, on perhaps is peculiar to it, and which makes it account of the right Chrift impoffible that any Promises to Wives of this has in himself, kind can be obliging, with regard to Confcience. as Head of the That is, the Matrimonial Right which Chrift myftical Marhas in the Man by his Baptifm, to be the Head riage contractof the Man himself, as the Man is the Head his Baptism. of the Woman. This is the myftical Archetypal Marriage infifted on in the Reasonings of St. Paul, as invalidating all confequent Marriages that are any way inconfiftent with it. Much more, all Matrimonial Contracts which are not effential to the Marriages themselves. These it may, and must invalidate, even when it does not invalidate the Marriages wherein such Contracts are made. Chrift's being the Head of the Man, ought in all reafon to be fo interpreted, as that it may give him the fame right over the Man which the Man has, as Head of the Wife. Yet in a more noble way, and superior to out earthly Marriages, which ought therefore to be overruled by it whenever they appear to be inconfiftent. This is a greater and more immediate Security for performance of God's Law, than feems to have been taken from the old Pecu lium. By this, Christ became not only the inL

vifible

« PreviousContinue »