relates to the lawfulness of marriage, as a civil transaction. It is as old as the seventeenth century; for it was then urged by the Anabaptists, in their public Debate with Doctor Featley. (h) The amount of it is this; that the sanctification of the parents to each other, is simply their marriage to each other; and the holiness of the children is simply their legitimacy. Dr. Gill espouses this scheme very decidedly; and rests his whole defence of it, upon "the Misnic, Talmudic, and Rab"binic writings!!!" From these he gives a long quotation, in which he correctly asserts that "the word "which is used to sanctify, or be sanctified, in the He"brew language, is used to espouse, or be espoused, no "less than ten times." He professes to give this extract "instead of a thousand that might be produced." Does not this armament loom as formidably as the Spanish Armada? But there is something else belonging to Spain which can match it exactly. The writings of Popes and Cardinals, Bishops and Monks, are to the Roman Catholics, as the Misnical, Talmudical, and Rabbinical writings are to the Jews, and, (in the present pinch,) to Dr. Gill: and, mark it well, that the Jewish writers are not more clear in converting sanctification into marriage, than the Popish writings are, in converting marriage into sanctification, or, into a sacrament. Now it would have been very easy for Dr. Gill to produce from a Popish writer, one passage, in which marriage was called a sacrament ten times; and to give this instead of a thousand that might have been produced.

(h) See the 8th page of the Doctor's account of that combat,

Why, then, does not Dr. Gill believe marriage to be a sacrament, as well as that sanctification is marriage? The evidence for both is much the same, as to weight and respectability. The one is supported by the traditionary legends of Jewish Rabbi's, written several hundred years after Christ; the other is supported by the traditionary legends of Popish Doctors, written several hundred years after the Apostles. The one is supported, as Dr. Gill says, by the writings of Jerome, a Christian Father; the other is supported, as the Papists say, by Jerome's Latin Vulgate, in Eph. v. 32, where he expressly says, concerning marriage, “SA66 CRAMENTUM HOC MAGNUM EST, this is a great sa"crament." Here we have Jerome and the Rabbi's for the Baptist error, and Jerome and the Doctors for the Popish error; all of them living and writing several hundred years after the Apostles, and having no more right to an arbitrary dictation in sacred criticism, than Dr. Gill or the Pope. For this I have the authority of Dr. Gill himself; for although he pleads Jewish inventions, to relieve him from a New Testament authority, which they have never expounded, yet he refuses to follow them in the very same view of an Old Testament text which they have explained. While he is endeavouring to prove that Paul's sanctification means marriage, he strengthens his cause by saying, "So the Jews interpret the word sanctified, in Job. i. 5. he ESPOUSED to them "wives." Yet when you turn over to the Doctor's commentary upon Job. i. 5. you find that he pays no attention to these Jewish espousals, but espouses him

self the Christian interpretation of the passage, in such a manner as to favour our cause in more respects than one.

On this subject, I have a question to propose to the learned world. I wish information. If marriage is intended in 1 Cor. vii. 14. then I ask, Is there another instance to be found, in the Greek Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, where the object is governed by the preposition en? In the present text, the supposed marrying verb is in the Passive voice, and the object in the dative case, governed, not by the verb, but by the aforesaid preposition. We have marrying verbs in the passive, in Mk. x. 12. Rom. vii. 4. Gen. xx. 3. Deut. xxi. 13. xxii. 22. but these verbs govern the object in the dative, without an intervening preposition. We have such verbs in the active, in Is. lxii. 5. Deut. xxv. 5. with which you might collate Ecclus. xxv. 8. 16. 2 Macc. i. 14. but these verbs also govern the dative of the object, without an intervening preposition. We have, moreover, such verbs in 1 Chr. ii. 21. Neh. xiii. 23. Matt. v. 32. xix. 9, 2ice. Mk. vi. 17. x. 11. Luke xiv. 20. but they all govern the accusative without an intervening preposition. If, therefore, we may judge by the style of the Apostles, and Evangelists, and Alexandrian Jews, who formed the style of the whole nation, it is extremely improbable that Paul meant marriage, when, in the text under review, he spoke of sanctification; especially, when sanctification does not signify marriage nor legitimacy in any other place in the whole scriptures.

But Dr. Gill well knew, that after the Apostles were dead, and his Jewish Rabbi's of a later date came on the

stage, they cultivated an invincible hostility, not only to the New Testament, but to their own most venerable Septuagint, because it was so eminently useful in illustrating and supporting the New Testament. It was after this invidious apostacy from the ancient style of their nation, that they began to call marriage, sanctification: but as this usage is a mere innovation, perfectly unknown in the Old or New Testament, it is of no more authority in controlling sacred criticism, than is a newspaper published last year in Modern Greek.

Let us, therefore, turn 'to an unadulterated Hellenist of the first Century, and ask how he would understand the text. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified 66 by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by "the husband: else were your children unclean; but "now are they holy." That he would never conjecture that marriage and legitimacy were here intended, is evident from this important consideration; that he had never before heard such language with such a meaning. Notwithstanding this, the language would be perfectly familiar, and the meaning perfectly obvious. Every part of the Old Testament, and every part of Jerusalem and Judea brings consecrated things to his view. There he sees a holy land and ground ;(i) holy mountains and hills; (j) holy cities and houses, cha mbers, instruments, and vessels ; (k) holy tithes and first-fruits, gifts, offerings, oblations, and portions ;(1)

(i) Zech. ii. 12. Ex. iii. 5.

(j) Is. xxvii. 13. Ps. xcix. 9. (k) Is. Ixiv. 10. 1 Chr. xxix 3. Ez. xlii. 13. Num. xxxi. 6. 1 Sam.

xxi. 5.

(?) Lev. xxvii. 30. Ez. xlviii. 14. Ex. xxviii. 38. 2 Chr. xxxv. 13. Ez. xlviii. 10. xlv. 14.

holy garments and crowns ;(m) holy nation, congregation, and flock,(n) holy persons, and holy seed.(0)

The holy flock here mentioned, Dr. Gill justly considers as meaning "Flocks of sheep which were conse"crated and set apart for holy uses, for sacrifices." These flocks of sheep Ezekiel expressly compares to "flocks of men." The Doctor reminds us, that in one of these holy flocks of sheep, there were as many as thirty thousand lambs given by king Josiah alone.(p) The sheep and lambs of these holy flocks, corresponded with the adults and infants of those "flocks, of men.' which they typified; for the first-born of the one and the other were sanctified, or made holy, to the Lord. The Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, therefore, justly insists, that when our Saviour said to Peter, "feed my "sheep," "feed my lambs," he had regard to the Apostle's duty toward the adults and infants of the church :(q) and these were assuredly embraced in the holy seed mentioned by Ezra. Our Hellenistic Jew, then, would find himself perfectly at home, when examining the New Testament regulations concerning holy children; for they are the holy seed, to which he considers himself as belonging, from his infancy. He would therefore say, as we have done, that the Apostle here speaks of

4. Seminal holiness. Dr. Macknight and Dr. Gill

(m) Lev. xvi. 4. Ex. xxix. 6.

(n) Ex. xix. 6. Num. xvi. 3. Ez. xxxvi. 38.

(0) Ps. lxxxvi. 2. Ex. xiii. 2. (Comp. Luke ii. 23.) Ezr. ix. 2. (f) On Ez. xxxvi. 38. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 7—9,

(9) John xxi. 15. 16. Taylor's Fourth Letter to a Deacon of a Baptist church, p. 28.