« PreviousContinue »
State by God himself, in the first Settlement of Civil Societies, long before the earliest Writings.
It now remains therefore that I (hew, That §. xn. Marriages out of the Peculium, were always it was agreethought derogatory to the holiness of the Seed,a!>le "j^Noeversince the time that God has been pleased,TMZfto& by the fore-mentioned Covenant, to make one /;«,,> \t a polSeedholy in contradistinction to others. This lution of the is the lets to be thought strange in our sacredly Stsii 'J Writings, because it is agreeable to the fense of ^ the earliest, even Heathen Antiquity, prefer- culiiuo. ved in their first and earliest Writings, which come nearest to the Times accounted for in our sacred Writings. Marriages with other Nations were from those times disliked, unless some Nation were admitted to a Jus Connubii of which we have instances in Livy. Accordingly, we find Abraham careful that his Son Isaac should match into his own Family, though not yet constituted a Holy Seed, which began in the Descendents from himself. The like care Rebekah had for her Son Jacob, that he might also match into the Family of her Brother Laban. That made her other Son Esau also, to match into the Family of lshmael, because he found it pleasing to his Father and Mother. Yet neither Laban nor lshmael were of the Holy Seed. In Athens, Themistocles was reckoned as a N68©-5 because his Mother was not an Athenian by Extraction, and there was a particular place allotted for those who were so in the Cynosures, to exercise by themselves, of less reputation than that was where . they were exercised, who had both Parents free-born Citizens. So the Romans allowed none fot£omplete Cwes, but those who were of both Parents Romans. Mark Antony's Children
dren of Cleopatra, though a Queen, were not capable, by the Roman Laws of inheriting any thing from him. They were not in poteliate, nor heredes sui. The fame was the case of Jephtha, who was excluded from inheriting with his Brethren for this very reason, because he was the Son os aftrange Woman, that is, not of a Jewish Extraction. By this it appears, that even in the Age of Jephtha^ a Woman that was not an Israelis ess by Extraction, could not be a Wife to an Israelite^ but only a Concubine, as afterwards; and, that Sons by such Concubines were disabled to inherit with Sons of both Parents of Ifraelitijh Original. Thus it 2 Cor.xi. 22. appears, that St. Paul being an Hebrew of Pfail.iii. S- Hebrews, that is, an Hebrew on forf> sides, as well on his Mothers fide as that of his Father, had really cause of boasting, so far as his interest in the old Peculium was really a cause of boasting. For, by these Reasonings, a defeel on «/for fide so far diminished the Right of the Person so deficient to the Privileges of the Peculium, that he wanted Privileges, allowed by the jLzws to those whose claim to the Holy Seed was not, in that regard, so exceptionable. Considering therefore that this Defeff weakned the Title to the Privileges of the Seed, it must consequently weaken his Title to the Seed it self j which, on account of its being the Seed, had a Right to those Privileges. For the Parent which was not descended from Abraham, could derive no Title to its own Off-spring to the Seed with which the . Covenant was made, nor to its Holiness. So far therefore, the Children proceeding from such Marriages, were losers by the Parents Fault that had been the cause of the Marriage. The very mingling of the Seed was a
debasing debasing it. -A mingled People, Jer. xxv. 20, 24.' L. 37. Ezek. xxx. 5. A mixed. Multitude, Exod. xii. 38. Numb. xi. 4. Neh. xiii. 3. iu»fl©cvwuiQw in the Greek, are Expressions signifying the fame thing with what the Greek Writers concerning Colonies call M/" s«=/W, a mixture of several Nations by Æar; And this very fame Expression, That the Holy Seed had mingled themselves with the People of those Lands, is used to fignifie this Sin against the Holiness of the Seed) Ezr. ix. 2. So ignoble an alloy is reckoned as a polluting of it as far as it was in the Parents Power to pollute it. By the reasoning of the Priests in the Prophet Haggai, Holy Ylejh touching indifferent things did not consecrate them; but if it touched any thing unclean, it was /> self polluted by it, ii. 12, 13. And by the like Reasoning on the fame Subject in the New Testament, a Christian committing Fornication does not consecrate the Harlot, but makes the Members of Christ Members of the Harlot, 1 Cor. vi. 15. For the Holiness whereby God consecrates the Peculium, consists in his separating them from all the People that were upon the j ace of the Earth, Exod. xxxiti. 16. So also the Holiness that is their Duty, consists in separating themselves from all unholy Converiatioa of what kind soever: And it is the Word par* ticularly made use of in the Subject I am discoursing of, when the Holy Seed preserve the honour of their Station inseparating from Gentile Marriages, Ezr. vi. 21. ix. 1, 2. x. 11,16. Nehem. ix. 2. x. 28, 30. xiii. 3. So also the Reasoning of fob, Who, can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one, xiv. 4. holds here / also, That, as to the reason of the thing, a Holy Seed could not be expected from an unholy D Gentile.
Gentile Parent. The Reasoning on the contrary, how the Federal Holiness of one Parent came to be thought sufficient for the Feederal Ho liness of the Seed, I shall afterwards account for. At present it is sufficient to observe, that though the Cbildbom of such a Marriage did indeed derive his Title to Federal Holiness from the Parent who by his Birtb was Federally Holy, yet that would not excuse that Parent in conscience, and before God, for having done what lay in him to deprive his Off-spring of so great a Privilege and BleJJing. However, he could not account for his Violation of his own Holiness in not observing the Separation now mentioned. By the Jœ Gentium then received, Parents were obliged to marry according to the dignity of their Station. On this account severe Laws were made against the Marriage of Free-born Women with Slaves -, and with this Crime this fort of Marriage is charged by the Apostle, of being unequally yoked, 2 Cor. vi. 14. This makes this fort of Marriage undecent, that it is against the dignity of the Orthodox Consort. But the Dignity being sacred, is that which makes it Piacular also. §. XIII. This Reason of Feeder al Holiness was alone Particularly in sufScient to hinder piousty disposed Persons, unclean' Sacra wno ha<i a fae regard to the great honour done used by the them in admitting them to that Federal HoliHeathen Con- ness, from engaging in such Marriages. But ^r^œ there was also another consideration that was *SSS5^y« more inconsistent. That was the sacred or in their Fa- Rites of the Marriages themselves, and thesemily-Religi- veral Holy Offices wherein the married Persons cms. were concerned to join, if not in the Solemniza
tion it self, yet at least afterwards on occasion of their Oecanomical Duties. I know very well, an Opinion has of late prevailed among despi
sers sers of Antiquity\ as if Marriage were an Office so purely secular, as to have no ingredient of Religion concerned in it. for my present purpose it is sufficient to observe, that this was very different from the fense of these earlier .Ages of which I am now discoursing. Plutarch on the contrary conceives, that there is no Bond more holy than that of Matrimony: Ss i yifomt W tnv, *cp*3*£/*.ct]d(d!;ii i in Erotic. And the obscene Symbols of all the Heathen Mysteries, plainly imply, that this was their agreed fense, from the very Originals of their Mysteries and God himself has so far countenanced it, as to represent his own Union with his Peculium ■under the Allegory of Marriage, as I have shewn that the Heathen Gods had done before. Each Family then had their sacred Rites. Da* z>id particularly mentions his, i Sam. xx. 29. much more these Patriarchal Families. In the Roman Laws inSacrk ejje, signifies the fame as Cod. vi. 42,3 s; to be in Poteftate, still to continue in the fa-and $4.3. and tber's Family: And sacris remitti, or abfolvi, \\'7^^ *8' the fame with being abdicated, or given to beand 6o.2.9ml -adopted into another Family. Thus it was in 40.1. the case of Children. And, for the lame Reason, the taking a Wife was admitting her to the Sacra of the family of the Husband, who, if he was a Heathen, worshipped, if not contrary, at least, rival "Deities; and therefore, must have been not only a great affront and indignity, but also a downright desecration. By the Doffrineand Reasonings ofSt. Paul, it must have been a KoivavU with'xhc Devil. For so he argues: What fellowship hath Righteousness with Unrighteousness? And what Communion ( vuna. is his word) hath Light with Darkness? • And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or, What part hath he that believeth with an InD 2 fide I?