vifible monor of the whole Body, but also the invifible dixoderns and Paterfamilias of every Family. And God being the Head of Chrift, both Peculia came this way to be united into one, which is a Point very much defigned to be made out in the Revelations of the New Teftament. For God, that is, the Father, is fuppofed to have performed the fame Office to the old Peculium, as the Aéy, the Son, the fecond Perfon of the Trinity, did under the new. If this be understood univerfally, the Father then must have been the invifible Husband in every particular Family, as well as of the whole old Peculium. So Chrift is reprefented in the New Teftament as the Bridegroom and Head of his Church, as well as of every Man. And the Father is commonly enough represented in the Old Teftament, as the Head and Husband of the whole old Peculium; but not so often (that I remember) as the Head and Husband of fingle Families. Indeed, the Revelations of the Old Teftament are not fo clear concerning the Son as concerning the Father. Yet they are fuffici ently clear, that the God they worshipped was to dwell in them, and that they were to be his Temples. It is indeed from Paffages of this importance in the Old Teftament, that St. Paul proves it under the New. If therefore his dwel ling in the midft of his People, imported a Ma trimonial Unity of a Head and Husband to the whole People then, it might conveniently enough imply the fame Relation in reference to fingle Members and Families. Yet the Notions of the Jews alfo of the Apoftolical Age, are clear enough concerning the Ay, as appears from Philo. He owns him to be the Son, to be the Girns between them war and his People, and to be the Archetypal asxcpds. They then

denied all vifible Appearances to God the Fa ther, whom they made above all, not only Η αίθησις but vs, whom they made utterly invisible, and denied that any Man either bad, or could fee him. This made them conclude, (and from them the Chriftians) that the God, who at any time is faid to have appeared, was no other than the Aéy, which muft fuppofe = him to have mediated through that whole Di fpenfation as well as under the new. How long before our Saviour's time thefe Notions were received, is hard to know, the Rabbini cal Testimonies being fo incompetent to determine it, and there being fo few Hellenistical I ones of known Antiquity, befides the Greek of the Old Teftament. But they are fuppofed in the Reasonings of the New Teftament, known by thofe Jews to whom thofe Writings were addreffed, as well as exprefly taught by Philo. And poffibly this might have been the meaning of St. John, where he speaks of their Roavia as being with the Father and the Son, I John i. 3. That he meant it of the novavia of the myftical Marriage. His defign therefore feems to be, to fhew, that to the Union of both Peculia into one, the Union with both PerSons was neceffary, the Union with the Father to unite them with the old Peculium, and the Union with the Son for uniting them with the

new:

And that neither of these singly would be fufficient, because the wealwyn (answering the wrindos of Profelytifm to the Father,) was by the Son. The Union therefore with both, he appropriates then to the Orthodox Communion with the Apostles, of which himself was then the vifible Head. This myftical Marriage therefore, reaching to every Single Paterfamilias, made the confent of Chrift as necef

L 2

fary

fary for any Difpofals of his Perfon, or Goods, after his Contract with Chrift in Baptifm, as the Headship of the Husband makes the Confort of the Husband effentially neceffary to the validity of the like Disposal of her Perfon, or Goods, in the Wives of our ordinary external Marriages. God himself excufed a Wife for a Vow to him felf, if her Husband did not think fit, at his firft knowledge of it, to ratifie it. And fo for the Wives themselves, they who did then believe them alienable, did not believe they could be alienated without their firft Husband's confent. The Apostle's Doctrine which allowed no Divorces, condemns the Wife of Adultery, if, whilft her Husband lived, the were joined to another Man. This is a clear account why Tertullian calls Marriages out of the Peculium, to which it was impoffible that Chrift could confent, Adulteries, as S. Paul, in his forementioned Reafonings, efteems them Nullities. And much more it must invalidate all thefe Agreements in favour of different Religi ons in the fame Family, to which it is impoffi ble he should confent, confidering, that as all the Doctrine of the Gospel favours only one Communion, fo he has purposely contrived this myftical Marriage, that he might make his own confent effential to the validity of all confequent Matrimonial Contracts. This is a Nullity of a nearer prospect than that which would be derivable from a train of numerous Confequences from the Patriarchal or Apoftolical Covenants. And this will extremely aggravate the nature of this Piaculum, that it is a confenting to the polluting of Chrift's Members, and his Sons and Daughters, which is incompa rably more than the polluting of the Holy Seed,

as

as holy on no other account but that of its defcending from the Holy Patriarchs.

culium cannot

bands out of

What therefore has been faid, reaches all S. LIII. Free-men. And (God be praised) our Laws Men of the Peknow no fuch thing as Slavery. All fuch ei- give the Wother are, or, (upon their Marriage) may be, men to be dif Heads of Families. And when they are fo, they poled of by will come under the forementioned Obligati- them, to Huf ons, from their Patriarchal and Apoftolical An- the Peculium. ceftors, from their Baptifmal Stipulations, and the right thereby conveyed to God and Chrift, as the Head of the mystical Matrimony there contracted. This will alfo reach the Women who cannot be validly difpofed of without their confent. The Patriarchal Covenants utterly difabled them either to give their Daughters to the Sons of those who were not in the Pe culium, or to take the unboly Daughters to their own Sons. This was pleaded (as we have feen) in the cafe of Dinah, that it would have been a reproach to those who had the difpofal of her, if they had confented to her Marriage with Shechem, if he had refused to submit to the condition impofed on him of being circumcifed. The myftical Marriage gives Chrift a more immediate right in all the Children of both Sexes, fo that none of them can be validly difpofed of against the Will of Chrift declared in the Revelations of the Gospel. It is the whole defign of all these Covenants. to keep one only Religion in a Family, and that the very fame of the Communion into which the Mafter of the Family was baptized. And the doing otherwise, will not only make a Nullity in the Marriage fo confented to, but will alfo forfeit him all the benefits of thofe Covenants, till he has done what lyes in him, to make reparation of his Covenanted Faith. This reaches all Women who

S. LIV.

ons on Wo

This

are at the difpofal of their Male Relations of
the Peculium. And, according to the Roman
Law, no Woman whatfoever could marry with
out the confent of their Tutor, though it was
a peculiar favour granted to Hifpula in Livy,
that the had leave to choose her Tutor.
Tutor reprefented the Perfon of a Father, and
fo, that the Marriage was null which was con-
tracted without his confent. Of this we have
fome foot-fteps in him who reprefents the Father
now, who therefore ought not to confent to
Marriages out of the Peculium. But the li-
berty the Woman has to choose the Perfon who
fhall represent her Father, leaves her perfectly
at liberty to choose one who fhall difpofe of her
according to her own defire. Nor does the Law
invalidate the Marriage when contracted.
though contracted without the real Father's
confent. Much lefs, if contracted without the
confent of him who only reprefents him on
that occafion. These things may seem to leave
fuch Women as thefe at liberty in the choice
of their Husbands: So far, at least, as they are
fuppofed to be at liberty in things wherein the
Laws of our Countreys do not reftrain them.

But they must not judge of themselves by The obligati thefe Restraints alone, if they will discharge a men, other good Confcience, and thereby intitle themselves wife free, that to the Rewards which they may expect from will invalidate God for doing fo. If they will expect the be their Marria- nefits of the new Peculium, they can do fo no ges out of the otherwife but by fubmitting to the Laws, and

Peculium.

performing the Conditions of it, and avoiding thofe Liberties which are inconfiftent with their doing fo. And, this will bring them under all the Obligations now mentioned, if they will regard God more than Men, and the discharge of a good Confcience more than worldly Penal