We consider matrimony to be a civil institution, and as such, it is both useful and necessary for mankind in their natural state; but it does not belong to the true followers of Christ; and for that reason they have nothing to do with it. As members of a christian institution, established by the law of Christ, and wholly unconnected with the civil, political and religious institutions of the world, it is inconsistent with our christian faith to interfere with any of their concerns. But at the same time, we are perfectly willing that every such institution, which produces any beneficial influence on its members, should be freely supported by those to whom it belongs, and whose concern it is to support it; and it is right and just that all people should act their own faith in this, as well as in all other matters.

The apostle Paul taught the Corinthians that it was "better to marry than to burn;" and we have ever acknowledged it better to mairy than to do worse. We readily admit that the institution of marriage is useful in its place; because it has a tendency to prevent many evils in society which could not otherwise be avoided. And for mankind, in their present state, it is absolutely necessary; because without it, the excesses of lawless lust would destroy every vestige of good order in society, and produce confusion and ruin among the human race. We will even admit that marriage is honorable in a state of nature, where the parties enter into it from honorable and conscientious motives, and are honestly and sincerely united in their endeavors to make an honorable use of it. But its frequent, fraudulent and shameful abuses are disgraceful to the parties, and cast a shameful blot upon the institution itself.

But tho we acknowledge the marriage institution to be both useful and necessary for the world in its present state; yet for the followers of Christ, who are called to forsake the course of the world, and to crucify the flesh with all its affections and lusts, it is neither necessary nor useful, but the contrary; it therefore forms no part of their duty, and can have no place among them. Their union is spiritual, and needs no fleshly support; their parentage is spiritual, and produces no fleshly offspring; their relation as brethren and sisters is spiritual, and can have no dependence on fleshly relation; their inheritance is spiritual, and cannot be controlled by human laws and institutions. Their temporal property, which is necessary for the support of the body while in this life, is regulated by a sacred compact, being, by mutual agreement, consecrated to religious uses, for the benefit of the whole body; and as such, it descends to their spiritual heirs in the same united capacity. So that all those difficulties concerning temporal property, so common among natural heirs, are prevented by the very nature of the institution, and, unless its rights are infringed upon by lawless usurpers from without, the descent of inheritance occasions no uneasi ness to the Society.

This spiritual relation in the church of Christ, is produced by "the law of the Spirit of life." It is the relation claimed by Jesus Christ, and he acknowledged no other. "Whosoever shall do "the will of my Father which is in Heaven, the same is my broth"es and sister and mother."* This relation is governed by the law of Christ, which is a law of righteousness and peace; and this law which governs the church of Christ, supersedes the necessity of human laws and human institutions to regulate its own internal concerns. And we have found by experience, that this law is a superior remedy against all those scenes of confusion and disorder, which are so common in the domestic circle, under a state of matrimony; and that it is more eminently calculated to promote the true spirit of union and harmony in society, than all the laws and institutions of matrimony, or any other law or institution ever devised by man.

CHAPTER IV.

The figurative import of Circumcision and other ceremonies under the law.

As Circumcision was an important institution given to Abraham, as the typical father of the faithful, and was continued to his posterity, as a primary and abiding institution, through all the law and the prophets, until the coming of Jesus Christ, it will be necessary to make some remarks upon this subject.

It is generally acknowledged that the ceremonies under the law were typical of gospel ordinances; that they were figures or shadows of something to be fulfilled in substance under the gospel; and that these "carnal ordinances," as the apostle calls them, plainly pointed to the spiritual work of Christ in his first or second appearance, or both. But among all the types of the law, none could be

more important than that of circumcision, not only because it was the first, and the foundation of all the rest; but also because it was the very seal of the covenant of promise given to Abraham, and typified a most important institution to be given to the faithfuĺ children of God in the latter day, and which was to be a peculiar mark of distinction between them and the rest of mankind.

A figure, to constitute a real type, must have a proper resemblance to the substance which it is designed to prefigure; otherwise it is not a type. It was therefore necessary that the institution of circumcision should bear a real analogy to that gospel institution which it was intended to point out. It is a prevailing opinion among many who consider water baptism as a gospel institution, that it was designed to supply the place of circumcision under the

Matt ii. 50.

law; some indeed suppose that circumcision was a type of water baptism. In this however, there must appear an obvious inconsistency for there is no kind of analogy between baptism and circumcision; and water baptism itself, was but a type of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This appears evident from John's own testimony: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he "that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and "with fire." Therefore, to say that circumcision was a type of baptism, is nothing less than calling it a type of a type, which is an absurdity.

The circumcision of the male in the flesh of his foreskin, was a significant mark of mortification in that particular member of the flesh in which is found the seat of its carnal pleasures. This seal of the typical covenant made with Abraham, was the most lively figure ever given to man, of the mortification of the very source of iniquity, by the spiritual work of Christ, and of the complete destruction of that carnal pleasure received from that source, in the act of sexual coition.

As circumcision was the seal of the covenant of promise to Abraham and his posterity, under the law; and as none were considered as God's covenant people without this seal, whatever degree of conformity they might observe in other respects; so it was a very plain manifestation that the seal of the covenant in Christ, was to consist in the cutting off, and total rejection of fleshly lust, by a life of self-denial and the cross. This is the very foundation of the true cross of Christ, and the separating line between "the children of this world," who "marry and are given in marriage," and "the children of the resurrection," who "neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like unto the angels ;" because they live a spiritual life. And without this seal, this distinguishing mark of the cross of Christ, no soul can be in the real covenant of Christ, revealed in this day, whatever profession he may make, or whatever duties he may perform, in other respects.

This figure is so obvious and striking, that it seems as tho none could mistake it, excepting those who are blinded by an obstinate determination to maintain the carnal life of the flesh, at all events. There is nothing else to which circumcision, as a type, can bear any consistent analogy. 66 By the law is the knowledge of sin." But as the law was only figurative of spiritual things, and not the real substance; therefore if its types do not bear a plain resemblance to their antitypes, then it is in vain to seek by them to find the knowledge of sin. Man has been too long imposed upon by false systems and imaginary theories, which have no foundation in truth, nor any consistency in themselves. Certainly a figure of so much importance as circumcision evidently was, under the law,

ought to be well considered by those who profess to be under the light of the gospel; lest, unhappily, they lose both the knowledge and the benefit of the most important principles of the gospel.

Let those who consider water-baptism to be the antitype of circumcision, (for if it was substituted under the gospel in lieu of circumcision, it must be the antitype,) consider also, that upon this principle, the antitype is not so mortifying to the flesh, nor so deep and lasting as the type. This clearly involves the absurdity of making the shadow of a substance more substantial than the substance itself. What figure could have been formed, under the law, to represent more plainly the cutting off and rejection of the carnal works of the flesh, under the gospel, than outward circumcision, or cutting off the foreskin of the flesh? This not only wounded the flesh in such a manner that the mark remained visible ever after; but it took blood, which is the life of the flesh, from that very member in which is found the seat and center of all the pleasures of lust.

The object of the covenant with Abraham, which was established and confirmed by this seal, was to show that under the gospel dispensation, the everlasting seal of the spiritual covenant, which was to distinguish Christ's chosen people from all others, must be that cross which destroys the life of fleshly lust. "For he is not 66 a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision "which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one in"wardly and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and "not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."* This then is the true seal which hath praise of God, but not of men for nothing is so opposite to the natural inclinations of fallen man as this seal, which is, in very deed, the cross against the lust of the flesh.

It may perhaps be objected that circumcision, when compared with this cross, is not a perfect figure; because males only were the subjects of circumcision; and therefore it could not properly typify that cross, which seems to be enjoined on females as well as males. True indeed, males only were the subjects of circumcision; but if sexual coition ceases in the male, it must cease in the female of course.

But there was another legal ceremony respecting women, which was sufficient to balance the cross of circumcision in the male, and which was not only a confirmation of the impure nature of the works of generation, but an evident token that these works were to be excluded from the church of Christ, which is the spiritual sanctuary of God. A woman who brought forth a male child, was counted unclean, under the law, seven days; and on the eighth day the child was to be circumcised. And even then, the

Rom. ii. 23, 29.

any

woman was not allowed to come into the sanctuary, nor touch holy thing, for the space of forty days from the birth of her child. After the birth of a female child, the time of her uncleanness and separation from the sanctuary was doubled, extending even to eighty days. After this she was required to bring a sin-offering and a burnt-offering to the priest, at the door of the tabernacle, where they were to be offered, before she could be admitted into the sanctuary with those who were accounted clean.*

Therefore, as circumcision was a figurative ceremony of purification to the male; so likewise these legal injunctions were figurative ceremonies of purification to the female; and both were designed to typify that state of purity and separation from all the works of generation, which were to be required of the church of Christ under the gospel dispensation. But why was the time of the woman's separation from the sanctuary doubled after she had borne a female child? This was to show that the female could not find her lot and order in the spiritual creation of God, until the second gospel dispensation, or second appearing of Christ, when the Spirit of Christ, manifested in a woman, should redeem the female character, and bring her into her proper lot and order in the new creation.†

Again: The law enjoined ordinances respecting sexual coition, which applied to both male and female, and which clearly pointed out the sinfulness of that nature in the sight of a pure and holy God. Every act of that kind excluded the parties from the camp, and from the society of those who were accounted clean; they could by no means be admitted into the sanctuary, nor come before the Lord at any time, nor partake of any holy thing, without being first ceremonially cleansed and purified from those works. When Moses was ordered to sanctify the people, and prepare them to appear before the Lord at Mount Sinai, he commanded them saying, "Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives." If this was not an unholy act, why did Moses give this charge?

As the ceremonies of the law were but types and figures of things to come, they must have their antitypes, and be fulfilled in substance under the gospel. If therefore these works of the flesh were not, in their very nature, unclean, and if they were not finally

*See Lev chap. xii

The man found his lot and order in the first appearing of Christ, who appeared in the male, (in the person of Jesus,) which was the first gospel dispensation, or antitype of the first temple. But the second gospel dispensation, which was prefigured by the second temple, was first manifested in the female, and was called the second appearing of Christ, in which the woman, as well as the man, is restored to her proper lot and order in the new creation. Exod. xix. 15,

See Lev xv. 18.