ties. In this regard, the condition of Women marrying out of the Peculium, will, by the forementioned Principles, be worse than that of Men. For the Woman, by confenting to pafs into the Husband's Family, was, for that very reafon, prefumed to pafs into his Sacra, which must make her more directly liable to the imputation of mingling the Holy Seed. The contrary was the Man's cafe, if a Man of the Peculium married a Wife who was not fo, he was, on account of her Marriage, prefumed to confent to be admitted into the true Communion. If therefore the proved otherwife, the Man would be chargable, not fo much for the Marriage it felf, as his own neglect in not taking care that the fhould be fo qualified as was requifite for being his Wife: That is, in not taking care that the fhould be really what she might have been prefumed to be, on account of her confent to marry one who was known to be of the Peculium. Befides, the Women alfo are obliged by the Patriarchal Covenants in their private Perfons, as defcended from the Patriarchs and Apoftles, as well as the Men, if they will challenge any right in the Covenants made with those their Ancestors. They are alfo as liable as the Men to the Curfes imprecated on Pofterity, to oblige them to performance of Duty in fucceeding Generations, if they will pretend to be of their Pofterity, and claim the Rights belonging to them as being fo defcended. They alfo, as well as the Men, have perSonal Stipulations in their Baptifm, and the myftical Marriage there contracted, and convey the fame Right thereby to Chrift as their Head and Husband, that makes their Perfons thence forward not difpofable without his leave and permiffion, and nulls all following Contracts of this L 4

nature

S. LV.

nature which are incapable of his Ratification.
They are not indeed Heads of Families as the
Men are, and therefore cannot engage fo abfo-
lutely as the Men can, for all their Defcendents.
But this does not hinder, but that they are ob.
liged to contribute to the Unanimity of the Fa-
mily-Religion, as the Men themselves are, ac-
cording to what they are able to contribute to
it. And it is certainly in their power to chufe
a Husband of the true Peculium, who may not
prejudice the Holiness of their common Seed,
Though they cannot dispose of themselves with-
out their Parents confent, or those who have
the right of difpofing them; yet neither can
they who have that right, difpofe of them to
an unholy Confort against their own wills. The
Laws of Men do not allow this: And much
lefs the Law of Chrift. As Chrift is the myfti
cal Head of the Men themfelves, fo the Women
are more obliged to their mystical than their vi-
fible Husband, fo that their vifible Head cannot
oblige them in any thing wherein he contradicts
the mystical Husband. No, not fo much as
with regard to Confcience, as has been already
proved. Nor is the cafe too difficult for a Wo-
mans Judgment to determine, even in oppofition
to him who is otherwife to be her inftructor in
Matters of Religion. It is a plain Matter of
Fact. If he perfuade her to a Match out of the
Communion wherein they have both been educa
ted, that is the cafe wherein she is not to re-
gard him, fo long as fhe believes that Commu-
nion to be in the right, wherein both of them
have had their common Education.

I had here concluded, if your mention of the
The firft Pecu- Sons of God who are faid to have married the
lium the most Daughters of Men, as an inftance of these un-
perfect of the
kind, and still lawful Marriages out of the Peculium had not
obliging,

given

given me a new Subjed, the rather worthy to e a little explained, because it is really imporant, and not commonly understood. I am of our mind, that this is really to your purpose. And I take it for the firft inftitution of a Pecuium, and therefore very neceflary to be cleared n order to the right understanding of the naure of that political Body of Men, which we all a Peculium. For, fo our Saviour in the afe of Marriage, refers us to the original Inftiution of it, as that which would best acquaint s with the true defign of God in it, as fitted o the nature of Man before it was fo degeneated as afterwards, whilft it was capable of hetter things, and needed none of those Indulences, and deviations from the Rule, which were afterwards allowed by God in compliance o their Weakness, that when they could not e advanced as far as was fit, they might at least, as far as they were capable of. These Indul gences therefore, made it afterwards difficult to distinguish in the Tranfactions of later times, what God intended to command, and what he was pleased to allow in condefcenfion to his Peoples Frailty, though otherwise not fo acceptable to him. Yet it is certainly very becoming them, who would approve their good-will in their Obedience, to endeavour to anfwer his full defign, rather than to content themselves with going no farther than his Indulgences. And it is accordingly our Bleffed Saviour's great defign, under his own more perfed Difpenfation, to repeal all thofe Indulgences, and to require the obfervation of all God's Commands, according to the true meaning of the Legiflator, when himself had reftored us to our antient Strength, by clearer Revelations of his own Will, and greater endearments of our Duty, and

the

the more plentiful effufion of his own Sh the true original of all that Ghoftly Str which is requifite to enable us to the perf ance of our own Duty. This Reafoning p ly fuppofes, that Man's Strength was grein then than it was afterwards, and that, wit it was fo, God was alfo more communicafe of his Mind to Men, when they were beti qualified to understand and practice it. therefore they were then better difpofed ty enabled to perform their Duty, fo they wal accordingly better qualified for thofe Fav which were defigned as Rewards to the r Peculium, in confideration of their Duty. defign therefore of the Gofpel being to ref the Duty and Privileges of the Peculium to ftate of their firft Inftitution; it must follo that the fhewing how they were then, wc moft contribute to the explaining them as the are to be under the Gofpel. It plainly fupp fes, that neither of them were rightly under ftood before, no, nor at any great diftance from the Original, when there was no reftoring them according to the Mind of God, but by reducing them to what they were at their original Infti tution. Thus neceffary it is, to explain the ftate wherein they were then, in order to the un derstanding what they ought to be now. Nor are we altogether unconcerned in the Sandion of them in those Ages. It is very true, that Peculium was extirpated generally, and by mingling with the Cainites, were involved with them in the common Punishment of the De luge. So that from Noah and his Family, a Mankind are derived as from a new Original Yet, even Noah was defcended from Seth and Enos, and was therefore liable to their Patri archical Stipulations. This therefore will also

v, that we are alfo to be concluded by the Sof Seth and Enos, as deriving our Extra7 from him who was defcended from them. s is like the Apoftle's Reasoning, that Levi Abraham paid Tithes to Melchifedek. And will prove, that we alfo ought to reckon our es as concluded by the Patriarchal StipulaIs of Seth and Enos.

lium.

proceed therefore to fhew, that the PofteriS. LVI. of Seth were indeed a Peculium. The old The Land inha ulium inhabited a boly Country: And I have bited by the Pofterity of wn, that the holiness of the Country requi- Seth was a 1. Duties from thofe who were not of their Holy Land, tion, when they inhabited the Holy Land, like that of the d that the native Inhabitants in other Coun-Jewish Pecues were excufed from many Duties to which ey were obliged in their own. This was the fe of the Pofterity of Seth. And for proving is, I will not reckon on the Traditions of the egends, but only on what may appear from ne Sacred Text. Fofephus tells us, that they id yw 7 alw name. That must be the Ant. I. 2. ame Land which had before been common to hem with Cain. But from which, Cain for is piacular Crime, was exiled. That was the attonement for involuntary fhedding of Blood, as appears from multitude of Examples in the eldeft Heathen Authors. A Law of Nations impofed by God in this firft instance of it. But this Murther being voluntary, it was a favour of God, at the request of Cain himself, to accept of his Exile for his own Blood. So 7ofephus interprets it: Τῆς ἐπὶ τῷ φόνῳ τιμωρίας αὐτὸν ἠφίᾳ, θυσίαν τὲ ἐπιλέσαντα, καὶ δι' αὐτῆς ἱκε τάσανα μὴ λαβεῖν ὀργίω ἐπ' αὐτῷ χείλεπωτέραν. But indeed the Law of fhedding Blood for Blood, does not feem to have been impofed till after the Deluge, Gen. ix. 5, 6. From that time forwards,