-own,

R

lefs it be that, in regard of what is properly its it defiles and kills. The Santification here fpoken of, is not of the Perfon, but of the Common Seed. The Apoftle's meaning could not be, that the Infidel Confort could it felf receive any Sanctification from the Faith of the Convert, but only that its own uncleanness fhould not be imputed to the Seed. Had it been fo, the Seed must have been defiled and killed, to fpeak in the Language of Tertullian. It must have been defiled, and therefore excluded from the privileges of the Holy Seed. It muft. have been killed, that is, myftically, by that very Exclufion, becaufe the mystical Life was it felf reckoned among the privileges of the true Peculium. But the received cuftom 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 fhould continue unprofelyted, and therefore impure and unholy in the Difcipline of each Peculium. The Children having the Seed of both Parents, could therefore not be taken fmply for a Holy Seed, unless what was received from the unholy Parent were alfo fanctified. Yet being counted holy for the fake of the single holy Parent, it muft follow, that for the fake of that one holy Parent, the Seed received from -the unholy Parent must be fan&ified alfo. This is, if I mistake not, a clear account how the unbelieving Husband was fantified by the Wife, and how the unbelieving Wife was alfo fandified by the Husband: Yet fo as that no bolinefs was derived from the believing Confort to the perfon of the Unbeliever, but only to their common Seed; that is fo, as that, for the fake of the believing Parent, God would be pleafed

pleafed to take no advantage againft their com mon Seed, to exclude it from the benefit derivable from the believing Parent, on accoun of the unbolinefs derivable from the Unbelie ver. This is a thing fo 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 promised, that when his Pofterity fhould provoke him, he would vifit their Tranfgreffions with the Rod, and their Iniquity with Stripes, but that he would not utterly take his loving kind nefs from him, nor fuffer his faithfulness to fail, Pfal. lxxxix. 32, 33. Where that it was for David's fake, appears from ver. 20, 35. Thence thofe many Paffages in the Hiftory of the Kings, afcribing the delay and remiffion of God's Fudgments deferved by them, to his remembrance of his loving kindness to that Patriarch. This therefore being fo, Tertullian fhews, that the fantification of the common Seed is to be ascribed to the grace and favour of God, who is the Author of Sanctification, and in whofe pleasure it was, either to exclude the common Seed from this foederal Holiness for the fake of one Parent, or to admit it for the fake of the other. However, that here is a Rule by which God is pleafed to proceed, which makes his Proceedings equal in both of the forementioned Cafes. That Rule is this: Upon the Baptifm of a profelyted Convert to our Chriftian Religion, the Holy Spirit is given him together with his Baptifm by Water. This renewing of the Holy Ghoft is the Principle of the new Life and Regeneration, to which he is intitled by the Baptifmal Covenant. This makes him born of the incorruptible Seed, and the

Son

Son of God. This makes him one Spirit, as I well as one Body with Chrift, the Holy Seed promised to Abraham, in whom all Nations of the Earth were to be blessed. This fanctified his Perfon, and made him of the Holy Seed, and as fuch gave him a right to have his own Seed counted holy alfo. And there was reafon, at firft Converfions, that the unboliness of the Con fort fhould not binder him from enjoying the benefit to which Baptifm 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 fo accounted. But it is a rule in Law, to prejudge on the fide of Favour, where the Reafons are otherwise equal And here are Perfons concerned in the favour of counting the Seed rather boly for the fake of the holy Parent, than unholy for the fake of the unholy one: The holy Parent whofe very Con verfion was a reafon, intitling him to favour in order to the encouraging Converfions: And the common Seed which was it felf 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 cafe of Children which were Members of the true Peculium on account of both Pa rents. The admitting Children to the remission of that Sin by their incorporation, was the fa vour granted in courfe to the Parents on their own incorporation. And therefore, that Sin it felf was not to be infifted on as a reason that should make them uncapable of the favour Otherwise it would be a perpetual reafon, which would never fuffer the favour to take place, and which would therefore make it per1 fectly useless against the defign of God who granted

I.

granted the favour., Befides this, the beneficent Nature of God was more inclinable to Favours than Punishments. Fuftice was his ftrange A&t, If. xxviii. 21. implying, that Mercy was more natural and delightful to him. And particularly, with regard to his rewarding the good or evil Acts of Parents to their Pofterity, he has here alfo 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 Cafe and of the Perfons concerned in it, and the commendableness of the end promoted by it, the encouragement of Converfions, might make it very reasonable for God to interpret his own Grants in the utmoft latitude the Cafe was capable of. And the rather fo for this reafon of Tertullian, that he found the Converts engaged in thefe Marriages. They were not therefore chargeable with the Piaculum of violating that Holiness which before their Converfion 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 remiffion of Sins then believed in Chriftian Baptifm, without any Penance, without any the leaft note of difpleasure for any thing committed before. Here therefore the whole Favour was to be fhewn that the Convert's Cafe was capable of, because any dimi nution would look like refentment of things paft. It would not elfe look like a complete San dification of him as God found him, unless it extended to qualifie his Seed as well as to his own Perfon.

ance of that

This Reasoning therefore of Tertullian, may — §. XLI. very well hold for fandifying the Children The continu which were born before the Profelyte's Conver- fanctification fion. But, what fhall we fay for continuing in to be derived thofe Marriages? What for the Children born from the per afterwards, who were not found by the grace of petuity of the God in the actual poffeffion of the Convert? What obligation reafon is there, that the fandtification fhould monial Con extend to them alfo? The Apology for this, tract, by the muft, I believe, be derived from their antece Law of Gods dent obligation in their Matrimonial Contra&. Yet even that could not fignifie much, if the liberties of Divorce had been allowed a aq

Tiar, which were usually practifed not only with the connivence, but the approbation alfo of the Roman and Jewish Laws. These would have left Converts at liberty to have quitted their Conforts at their firft Converfion, and would have recommended it as a commendable cause of using their liberty of Divorce in the first heats of their new Converfion. The Law of Chrift was that which took away all other caufes of Divorce, excepting Fornication, and which extended the obligation of the Ma trimonial Contract to a duration for term of Life. This being fo, obliged them not to break on their part without confent 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 alfo, though not in fuch an appropriated fense 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 punished Saul and his bloody House for violating the Faith given by their Ancestors to the Gi

2

beonites,

of the Matri