Page images

tefs it be that, in regard of what is properly its own, it defiles and kills. The Sanitification here spoken of, is not of the Person, but of the common Seed. The Apoftle's meaning could nor be, that the Infidel Confort could it felf receive any Sanétification from the Faith of the Convert, but only that its own uncleanness should not be imputed to the Seed. Had it been fo, the Seed must have been defiled and killed, to speak in the Language of Tertullian. It must have been defled, and therefore excluded from the privileges of the Holy Seed. It must have been killed, that is, myftically, by that very Exclusion, because the mystical Life was it self reckoned among the privileges of the true Peculium. But the received custom had been, in both Peculia, to admit the Children of Converts to the privileges of the Peculia upon the holiness of the Convert Parent, and to treat them as a Holy Seed, though the Conforts should continue unprofelyted,

and therefore impure and unholy in the Discipline of each Peculium. The Children having the Seed of borb Patents, could therefore not be taken fimply for a Holy Seed, unless what was received from the unboły Parent were also fanétified. Yet being counted holy for the sake of the single holy Parent, it must follow, that for the fake of that one holy Parent, the Seed received from the unboly Parent must be fan&tified also. This is, if I mistake not, a clear account how the unbelieving Husband was fanctified by the Wife, and how the unbelieving Wife was also Fanttified by the Husband : Yer so as that no holiness was derived from the believing Confort to the person of the Unbeliever, but only to their common Seed; that is so, as that, for the Jake of the believing Parent,' God would be


pleased to take no advantage against their conmon Seed, to exclude it from the benefit deri vable from the believing Parent, on accoun of the unholiness derivable from the Unbelie ver. This is a thing so far from being strange as that it is indeed very ordinary in the com mon Administrations of Providence, for God to pass by the Sins of one Parent for the Obe

. dience of another. For David's fake, God pro mised, that when his Posterity should provoke him, he would visit their Transgressions with the Rod, and their Iniquity with Stripes, but that he would not utterly take his loving kind. ness from him; nor suffer his faithfulness to fail, Pfal. lxxxix. 32, 33. Where that it was for David's fake, appears from ver. 20, 35 Thence those many Pallages in the History of the Kings, afcribing the delay and remiffion of God's Judgments deserved by them, to his remembrance of his loving kindness to that Patriarch. This therefore being fo, Tertullian shews, that the sanctification of the common Seed is to be ascribed to the grace and favour of God, who is the Author of Santification, and in whose pleasure it was, either to exclude the common Seed from this fæderal Holiness for

the sake of one Parent, or to admit it for the Sake of the other. However, that here is a Rule by which God

is pleased to proceed, which makes his Proceedings equal in both of the forementioned Cases. That Rule is this : Upon the Baptism of a profelyted Convert to our Christian Religion, the Holy Spirit is given him together with his Baptism by Water. This renewing of the Holy Ghost is the Principle of the new

Life and Regeneration, to which he is intitled by the Baptismal Covenant. This makes him born of the incorruptible Seed, and the


Son of God. This makes him one Spirit, as well as one Body with Christ, the Holy Seed promised to Abraham, in whom all Nations of the Earth were to be blessed. This fantified his Person, and made him of the Holy Seed, and as such gave him a right to have his own Seed counted holy also. And there was reason, at first conversions, that the unholiness of the Consort should not hinder him from enjoying the benefit to which Baptism had intitled him. However the common Seed was accounted, whe ther holy or unholy; it could have only one Parent to plead for its being so accounted. But it is a rule in Law, to prejudge on the side of Favour, where the Reasons are otherwise equal And here are Persons concerned in the favour of counting the Seed rather holy for the sake of the holy Parent, than unholy for the sake of the unholy one : The holy Parent whole very Con version was a reason, intitling him to favour in order to the encouraging Conversions: And the common Seed which was it self uncapable of demeriting it, and had withal the favour of the believing Parent to plead in its own behalf. Its original Sin was to be no hinderance here; because it was never allowed to be a hinderance in the case of Children which were Members of the true Peculium on account of both Parents. The admitting Children to the remission of that Sin by their incorporation, was the fa vour granted in course to the Parents on their own incorporation. And therefore, that Sin it self was not to be insisted on as a reason that thould make them uncapable of the favour : Otherwise it would be a perpetual reason, which would never suffer the favour to take place, and which would therefore make it per: fectly useless against the design of God who



granted the favour. Besides this, the beneficent Nature of God was more inclinable to Favours than Punishments. Fustice was his strange Ad, II. xxviii. 21. implying, that Mercy was more natural and delightful to him. And particularly, with regard to his rewarding the good or evil AEts of Parents to their Posterity, he has bere also declared his greater inclination to Favours than Punishments. He punishes to the third and fourth Generation : But he rewards to thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandments. This favour of God joined with the favourableness of the Case and of the Per. fons concerned in it, and the commendableness of the end promoted by it, the encouragement of Conversions, might make it very reasonable for God to interpret his own Grants in the utmost latitude the case was capable of. And the rather fo for this reason of Tertullian, that he found the Converts engaged in these Marriages. They were not therefore chargeable with the Piaculum of violating that Holiness which before their Conversion they could not pretend to. It was not their choice that they had an unclean Confort, being engaged before they knew any thing of the holiness of the Peculium. Withal perhaps, he had in mind the complete remission of Sins then believed in Christian Baptism, without any Penance, without any the least note of displeasure for any thing committed before, Here therefore the whole Favour was to be shewn that the Convert's Cafe was capable of, because any diminution would look like resentment of things past. It would not else look like a complete San#tification of him as God found him, unless it extended to qualifie his Seed as well as to his own Perfon.

This Reasoning therefore of Tertullian, tay $. XLI. very well hold for San&tifying the Children

The continua which were born before the Profelyte's Converance of that i fion. But, what shall we say for continuing in to be derived

those Marriages? What for the Children born from the per* afterwards, who were not

found by the grace of peruity of the God in the actual poffeffion of the Convert? What Obligation 3 reason is there, that the San&tification should monial Cone i extend to them also ? The Apology for this, trast, by the : must, I believe, be derived from their antece Law of Gods

dent obligation in their Matrimonial Contrad. Yet even that could not signifîe much, if the

liberties of Divorce had been allowed did tão 5 milzicer, which were usually practised not only

with the connivence, but the approbation allo of the Roman and Jewish Laws. These would have left Converts at liberty to have quitted their Conforts at their first converfion, and would have recommended it as a commendable cause of using their liberty of Divorce in the first hearts of their new Conversion. The

Law of Christ was that which took away all 5 other causes of Divorcë, excepting Fornication,

and which extended the obligation of the Matrimonial Contrad to a duration for term of

Life. This being so, obliged them not to break 5 on their part without consent of the Confort.

to whom they had given their Faith in the ftate of their common Infidelity. For the God of the Peculium was the God of all other Na. tions also, though not in such an appropriated sense as he was of the Peculium. Yet as to the Laws himself had given, for the good govern. ment of Mankind in general, and the

common good of all Nations, he would not suffer their violation even in his own Peculium. So he pu: nished Saul and his bloody House for violating the Faith given by their ancestors to the Gi


« PreviousContinue »