The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 52
CHAP. LII.
Gal. 4. 29. Vindicated.
THe next Scripture Text to make good the point in hand, is Gal. 4. 29. As then he that was borne after the fleſh perſecuted him that was borne after the Spirit, The Text Analyſed.even ſo it is now. For the clearing of which I have obſerved heretofore in the Apoſtles words there. Firſt, the Hiſtory. Secondly, the Myſtery by way of Allegory. Thirdly, the parallel by the Apoſtle obſerved and applied to his own times.
The Hiſtory we finde, verſe 22, 23. It is written that Abraham had two ſonnes, the one by a bond-maide, the other by a free-woman, but he who was of the bond-woman was born after the fleſh, but he of the free-woman was by promiſe.
The Myſtery by way of Allegory, verſe 24, 25, 26. Which things are an Allegory, for theſe are the two Covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and anſwereth to Hieruſalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Hieruſalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
The parallel in theſe words, But as then, he that was born after the fleſh perſecuted him that was born after the Spirit, ſo it is now. From whence this argument is drawn,The argumen deduced from it. If there yet remaine in the boſome of the Church children borne after the fleſh, as well as thoſe that are borne of the Spirit, (ſo that the diſtinction of births, as applied to Abrahams ſeed, ſtill hath place among Chriſtians) then there is that priviledge of birth-holineſſe ſtill remaining; The conſequence is plaine, Birth of the fleſh in the Church gave a Church-intereſt, The Apoſtles kinſemen after the fleſh, Rom. 9. 3. were all Church-members. That there is is ſuch a birth yet remaining, the Text quoted makes cleare; Iſhmael was in Abrahams family, and was by birth of his family, and did perſecute in the family, and was by birth of his family, and did perſecute in the family, as the Apoſtles ſhews out of Scriture Hiſtory, Men in the Church, borne in the Church, by birthright of the Church, do perſecute, as upon experience he affirms, and ſo makes up the parallel. There birth of the fleſh, is the higheſt honour they attaine; when others have the ſame with an addition to it; this implies two things. 1. A birth of nature, a childe by lineal deſcent of ſuch a father. 2. Outward prerogatives that accompany ſuch a birth.
I know and have declared that this is not that which the Apoſtle here chiefly intends, or is about to hold out. But this I affirme, that he occaſionally layes down, that which I here have delivered. And by this free conceſſion of mine, any man in reaſon might have thought, that I had prevented that which is ſtill charged upon that which from this Text I have inferred, or rather that which in this Text I have obſerved, one largely ſhewing that theſe words in hand, are a compound propoſition, which Logicians call a comparative propoſition, in which are two parts, a Protaſis, and an Apodoſis, or rendring, wherein that which anſwers the fore part, firſt held out, is expreſſed, now that alwayes notes ſome agreement, correſpondence, parity or likeneſſe, whether in quantity, quality, action, &c. But according to my Apodoſis or reddition (as is ſaid) there is no ſuch anſwerableneſſe, or likeneſſe, as hath the ſhew of a compariſon of things equal or alike (as this is as the affirmative termes ſhew) for who would conceive any better then non-ſenſe, in ſuch a ſpeech as this, Even as Iſhmael perſecuted Iſaac, ſo the children of Christian beleevers are viſible members in the Chriſtian Church. It were all one as to ſay even as Eſau hated Jacob, ſo godly men are heirs of heaven, or have acceſſe to God. The abſurdity of which with him is ſo groſſe, that the man is amazed that I do not ſee it, nor will confeſſe it. Being above his ſtrength to anſwer that ſenſe; which I give of the words, he is pleaſed to take paines to make them up, by his gloſſe, into non-ſenſe, that ſo no anſwer may need, But he well knows or might know, that I have not to deale with the whole of that Protaſis, nor the whole of that Apodoſis, and not at all with the perſecution there mentioned, but onelyonly with the diſtinction there let fall, which is a diſtinction of births, both in Abrahams family, and in the Church, in Goſpel-times, which the Apoſtle in his Application in thoſe words [Then] and [Now,] plainly doth demonſtrate. The truth which the Apoſtle ſuppoſes, and takes for granted, I have here to ſpeak to, and not to that, which by way of allegory, he infers from it, or applies to it, and ſo the liſt of authours here brought in by my adverſary; ſpeaking of the perſecution of Chriſtians, by Jews and Papiſts, may all of them ſpeak truth; but none of them all, any thing againſt me, who deduce no more from the words, but that a diſtinction of births is there laid down, or rather taken for granted, which is by the Apoſtle allegoriſed, but the allegory is not at all within that which I am upon. I met with like dealings, from the ſame hand; when I did compare, 1 Cor 7. 14. with Gal. 2. 15. to make good a title to Covenant-holineſſe, by birth of nature, both with Jew and Gentile. I then heard thoſe words of the poet, Cerni…us, an qui amant, ipſi ſibi ſomnia fingunt? But the evidence of truth, with Maſter Cartwrights authority, making them as to the thing, full parallel (as to every eye they are) hath there wrought ſome ſilence, ſo I doubt not, but it will follow here. It is not the Apoſtles intention, Gal. 2. 15. to ſpeak of the birth-priviledg of the Jews, nor yet the want of it in the Gentiles, yet there he mentions both,Gal. 4. 29. neither is it his intention to treat of ſuch a diſtinction of births, in the Church. Jewiſh or Chriſtian, but the hoſtile diſpoſition of one, ſo born; againſt another, yet in that place he plainly ſignifies ſuch a diſtinction of births in either Church, both Jewiſh and Chriſtian. Can any man deny that Abraham had two ſons of ſuch different births, as the Apoſtle from the hyſtory in Geneſis ſhews, v. 22, 23. Iſhmael is ſet out as a ſon of Abraham, and upon that account we know he had the honour of circumciſion, Iſaac had the ſame, but a degree of further honour with it, being born as Iſhmael was not) by promiſe, And whatſoever Allegory the Apoſtle makes of it (which is not to my purpoſe to examine) yet in his reddition or application, he looks at the hi…ſtory, not at the allegory, as the adverbs of time, Then, Now, (neither of which are allegoriſed) do demonſtrate. And though Iſhmael may be a type of a juſtitiary, ſeeking righteouſneſſe by works, and perſecuting thoſe that ſeek a righteouſneſſe by faith, whether typus, factus, or deſtinatus I will not enquire, yet, I think, it will never be proved; that Iſhmael was ſuch a one, in his own perſon, perſecuting Iſaac on that account; which muſt be proved, if the Apoſtle in his reddition do no look at the hiſtory, but the allegory as my adverſary contends or elſe he ſpeaks beſides the purpoſe, [Then] looks at the hiſtory denoting time, as none can deny, and [Now] muſt not referre to the allegory without great abſurdity. My interpretation (as is ſaid) will not hold, in that according to it, there is no agreement, correſpondency, or parity in the parts of the compound propoſition, And I wonder; what agreement, correſpondency or parity there is, or can be, in the parts of this compound propoſition, according to the interpretation oppoſed againſt me, confounding hiſtory and allegory together. Thus it muſt be, as Iſhmael no juſtitiary, then jeered Iſaac, a ſucking babe (as my adverſary out of Hierome ſpeaks) who was not in capacity to look after any righteouſneſſe, ſo it is now; juſtitiaries perſecute thoſe that do follow after righteouſneſſe by faith. If this gloſſe ſtand it ſhould not be, ſo it is now, but rather, now it is otherwiſe. He that will come to a right underſtanding of the Text, muſt refer this 29. verſe to 22, and 23. looking upon verſe 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. (where the allegory is proſecuted) as a parenthiſis, ſeeing the words in v. 29. cannot be refer'd to the allegory in thoſe words, where there is no mention made of perſecution but to the hiſtory in the former. I am told, that the Apoſtles diſtribution, cannot be, of a ſubject by its adjuncts, but, of a genus, into its ſpecies, becauſe [birth] is neither ſubſtance, quantity, nor quality; but an action, or a paſſion, and actions though they be capable of various modifications, yet Logiſcians (as is ſaid) do not call them ſubjects. But doubtleſſe the perſon borne, is and may be called a ſubject, and ſtands in a capacity of adjuncts, and I look to the perſons here diſtinguiſhed, ſome with more inferior, and others with more noble adjuncts. When I cite may Maſter Baine (brought in againſt me as an adverſary) ſaying, The children of the fleſh here, are thoſe onelyonly who in courſe of nature came from Abraham, I am told, it is true, that Mr. Bayne ſo interprets the terme [children of the fleſh, Rom. 9. 8.] as I have cited him, which place he meant, but not the terme [he that is borne after the fleſh, Gal. 4. 29.] yea, p. 138. he ſaith, for though children of the fleſh, in ſome other Scripture (meaning Gal. 4 29.) doth note out juſtitiaries, ſeeking ſalvation in the Law, yet here (Rom. 9. 8.) the literal meaning is, to be taken, a childe of the fleſh, being ſuch a one who deſcendeth from Abraham according to the fleſh. But how can Mr. Bayne poſſibly meane, Gal. 4 29. (as I am here told he doth) when he ſpeaks of the children of the fleſh, when thoſe words are not to be found there, [but born after the fleſh] and thoſe terms [children of the fleſh] and [born after the fleſh]▪ are in this very place by my adverſary diſtinguſhed. And though Maſter Bayne do not quote, Gal 4 29. in that place which I mentioned, yet Doctor Abbot in Thomſoni diatribam, p. 115. ſaith. Circumciſus eſt Iſhmael, circumciſus & Iſaac, ſolus autem Iſaac, natus ſecundum ſpiritum, Iſhmael tantummodo ſecundum carnem, non eſt autem juſtificatus, qui natus est tantum modo ſecundum carnem, Iſhmael quanquam circumciſus, non eſt tamen juſtificatus, &c. Here he plainly makes the birth of the fleſh, an honour giving circumciſion, though an honour inferiour to that of the birth of the ſpirit which juſtification accompanies, and he quotes Gal. 4. 29. as a proof of what he ſpeaks, and I am much engaged to my Antagoniſt, for his quotation out of Hierome. Sicut ergo, tum; major frater Iſhmael, lactentem adhuc & parvulum perſequabatur Iſaac, ſibi circumciſionis prerogativum, ſibi primogenita vendicans, ita & nunc, &c. Whence had he this prerogative of circumciſion, but from this birth, that I ſpeak of from Abraham, and there is, the like prerogative of birth; ſtill continuing, or elſe there is no parity in the Apoſtles reddition. Here I ſhall take notice of a fourfold abſurdity endeavoured to be faſtened upon me.
1. That I underſtand this to be ſaid of Infants which then muſt be ſaid to perſecute, But I underſtand it not of Infants, but of thoſe, which ſometimes were Infants; and had their birth in infancy, from ſuch and ſuch parents.
2. That I take [being born after the fleſh] in the latter part to note a natural birth, but that is clean beſides the Apoſtles meaning, who conſiders perſons borne after the fleſh, not as borne by humane members and ſeed, but as born by a fleſhly covenant, otherwiſe it would import no allegory, contrary to the Apoſtles ſpeech, ver. 24. which tells us theſe things are an allegory. If I ſhould take it in one part of the propoſition, in one ſenſe, and in another part of the propoſition, in another ſenſe I ſhould then quite ſpoile the agreement, which I am told muſt be in it, and then I might have been indeed argued againſt for an abſurdity whereas it is ſaid that the Apoſtle conſiders perſons borne after the fleſh, not as born by humane members and ſeed, but as borne by a fleſhly Covenant, I ſay, that, that is falſe, as to the hiſtory, and I have ſhewed by reaſons that have yet no ſatisfying anſwer that the Apoſtle, v. 22, 23. lays down the hiſtory, which afterwards he allegorizes in five verſes, and then makes application of the hiſtory, and not of the allegory, v. 29.
3. That to be [born after the fleſh] ſhould import, birth of Abraham, as a beleever, and ſo natural generation, of each child of a beleever in that reſpect, …ut then [to be borne after the fleſh] would be common to Iſaac with Iſhmael, to him that is borne after the ſpirit, of the free woman by promiſe, with him that is borne after the fleſh of the the bond-woman; for to be borne of Abraham, or a beleever agrees alſo to Iſaac, to him that is born after the Spirit, of the free-woman by promiſe; whereas to be borne after the fleſh is taken in a ſenſe from which Iſaac and we, that is, Paul and other Chriſtian beleevers are excluded. That is, that certain clear truth by way of neceſſary corollary would follow, which that great Doctor Abbot, in the place quoted takes for granted, ſpeaking of both births, and applying his tantummodo twice over to Iſhmaels birth, he clearly ſignifies, that Iſhmael had this honour, and that Iſaac had it likewiſe, and that which is far more noble together with it.
4. It is ſaid, that I quite pervert the Apoſtles intent, in taking [to be born after the fleſh] to impart an honour, whereas the Apoſtle mentions, birth after the fleſh, as a debaſement, takes it in the worſer part, not as importing a deſcent from the father, but from the mother and that mother a bond woman, and therefore the children, ſervants, or bond…ſlaves, by reaſon of their being borne after the fleſh. And doth not the Apoſtle tell us, in the relation of the hiſtory, of their father as well as their mother? does he not ſpeak of one common father, in theſe words, Abraham had two ſons, as well as of two different mothers? and I dare not take the boldneſſe to exclude either. I confeſſe the Apoſtle mentions [birth after the fleſh] as a debaſement, in putting it in oppoſition to [birth of the Spirit,] yet I affirme, that he mentions it alſo, as an honour. As circumciſion was a debaſement in one reſpect, Eph. 2. 11, and an honour in another, Rom. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 5. It was an honour to have Circumciſion in the fleſh, they were thereby a people of God in Covenant, but it was a debaſement, being put in oppoſition to circumciſſion in heart; and to the worſhipping of God in Spirit and in Truth; it was an honour to be born of Abraham, after the fleſh, and frequently mentioned in Scripture as an honour, but an abaſement, when it is oppoſed to the birth of God by the Spirit. Much more might be animadverted, but this is enough (as I think) to the cauſe, and I purpoſely avoid all that concernes the perſon, I know not what more may be ſaid, but I finde nothing, as yet, ſaid; but that which inſtead of evincing the contrary (being thoroughly examined) is a more full confirmation, that in New Teſtament-times, ſuch a diſtinction of births, is in New Teſtament-times continned, clearly hinted and taken for granted here, and in other Scriptures fully expreſt.