Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 93
SECT. XCIII. Dr. Hammonds rendring [by] 1 Cor. 7.14. is reselled, and my rendring foreign [to] justified.
SEct. 3. The Dr. omitting what I said, that if foreign be rendred [in] it serves my turn, not his unless it be proved it must be rendred [by,] and his supplement [by the company and conversation of the believer] proved, saith somewhat to my reasons of adhering to the reading of foreign 1 Cor. 7, 14. by [to] 1. because this seems to me the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense. But 1. he tels me this is the begging of the question, that it is such must not be here supposed when it should be proved. To which I reply, 1. if it be the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense, it is some proof. 2. That it is the onelyonly sense which can stand with the words and scope of the Apostle, and is avouched so by learned men, ancient and later Protestants and Papists, is shewed at large in my Exercit. sect. 5. Examen, par. 3. sect. 8 Review, par. 1. sect. 11, &c. here sect. 76, &c. Refutat. of Dr. Savage his position in Latine, sect. 9. Antidote, sect. 7. besides what occurs in my Apology, Postscript, Plea, which is abundantly sufficient for acquitting me from begging the question, which he doth so importunely urge. 3. That the Dr. rather begs the question then proves his interpretation, hath and will appear in this and the former view taken of it.
But the Dr. sullies the beauty of my sense of the Apostles words thus. The fairness of the sense (simply taken) is not attempted to bee proved, which yet doth stand in great need of it; For beside the redundance, or unusual sense of foreign, some other parts of the rendering are none of the fairest. As 1. the believer may abide] as if it were simply free to abide or not abide, whereas in the present case (when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer) the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least, if not commanded (and that is more then a liberty that he may.) To him the Apostle saith (and his sayings have sure authority with them) foreign let him not put away. Nay the interdict of Christ belonging to all but that one case of fornication, Mat. 5. and Mat. 19. it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever, that is, guilty of no more but unbelief. And accordingly the preface foreign — But for the rest (or for the other questions v. 1, 6, 8, 10. say I, not the Lord) must be applied not to the immediate consequents of the believers not putting away the unbeliever, that will stay with him (for that had been determined by Christ in the negative) but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart, i. e. if the unbeliever will not dwell with the believer, except the believer forsake his or her religion, what shall be done then? And to that the Apostles counsel is, that marriage inslaves not the believer so far. All which is a competent prejudice to that part or Mr. T his sense, The believer may abide; For if that bee it even when the unbeliever is willing to abide, then she may also depart, if shee rather chuse, which will be found contrary to Christs precept.
Answ Nil tam recte dictum quod non possit malè interpretando depravarier, as the Dr. doth here. 'Tis true I did in the second part of this Review Sect. 26 p. 319, 320. say (and gave reasons of it) that the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.12, 13. did dot forbid leaving each other, but resolve onelyonly the lawfulness of living together, but this did not intimate as if the believer were simply free to abide or not abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow willing to live with her, that when the unbeliever is willing to abide the believing wife may also depart if she rather chuse, but this, that notwithstanding the continuance of the unbelief of the husband, the wife might live with him, it was not unlawfull. So that I asserted not a liberty of le…ving him upon any cause, but a liberty of continuing with him, notwithstanding that reason … and therefore the Dr. did ill to paraphrase v. 12. be ought not to put her away, v. 1…. let her by no meanes separate from him. And I gave some reason from v. 15. where the permitting to depart is a matter of liberty, as the word [is not in bondage) shews, and yet the word is as much imperative as v. 1…, 13. And I might have added, that v. 18. let him not be uncircumcised, let him not be circumcised, are there expressions of liberty, not of duty (as the reason v. 19. shews) and yet are as imperative as the forms used v. 12, 13. [See before of this, p. 624, 625, 626.] 'Tis true, to be circumcised might be forbidden elsewhere, as Gal. 5.2, 3. and might be then unlawfull, and so it might be forbidden in other texts for the beliver to leave husband except in case of fornication, but in these texts liberty onelyonly is expressed, in the one of living together notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party, in the other continuing in that state of circumcision or uncircumcision, as they were in when they were first called to the faith of Christ. And this I think the Dr. should prefer as the most suitable to his own exposition, sith the frequent conversion of the infidel by the believer, v. 14. is no fit reason to make it an unlawfull thing for her to depart, but onelyonly it may be some motive of her will to continue, as the Dr. makes it. And I conceive v. 17, 20, 24. are to be so expounded, sith it is clear that to be a servant, or unmarried are some of the callings there mentioned, as v. 21, 27, 28. shew, but if it were a command of duty meant, v. 17, 20, 24. the servant must remain a servant contrary to v. 21. and the unmarried not marry, contrary to v 28. And v. 27. foreign seek not a wife, being as prohibitive a form as foreign v. 12, 13. an unmarried man should be forbidden to woe a woman, contrary to v. 28. which exempts marriage from sin. So that indeed all these imperative speeches v. 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27. are to be expounded as resolutions of liberty, and so precepts of indulgence, not absolute prohibitions or injunctions of what may in no case be done, or must be done as precepts of empire. And it is as when a person scrupling whether shee may be married to a Priest woing her is resolved thus, let her not forsake him, she is not commanded to marry him, but resolved she may; so it is in this case. Which being rightly understood, there is nothing opposite in my speech to Christs speeches Matth 5. or 19. about not putting away except in case of fornication, nor the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.10. Nor need I trouble my self whether foreign be the other questions, v. 1, 6, 8, 10. though I think it should have been then foreign, nor whether it be to be applied to v. 15. as the Dr. would, though it bee in my apprehension very unlikely.
Secondly, saith the Dr. In this rendring, foreign is englished (not by is or hath been sanctified, but … by [is as if he were sanctified] which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not, truely (in any respect) sanctified, and then sure this will be a strange construction, foreign the unbeliever (is not sanctified but) is as if he were sanctified, when yet litterally it must be rendered the unbeliever hath been, or (to gratifie Mr. T.) is or continues to be sanctified: For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation, he is sanctified, by he is not? For so assuredly he is not, if he onelyonly be as if he were.
Answ. According to me, foreign is rendered or englished [is or hath been sanctified] but is expounded [is as if hee were sanctified] as 1 Cor. 10. foreign is rendered or englished [were baptized] yet by Grotius expounded annot. 1 Cor. 10.2. baptizali sunt, id est, quasi baptizati sunt. Which me thinks should be no strange construction to Dr. Hammond, who by his answer to Dr. Owen ch. 5. §. 1, 2. seems to be acquainted with Grotius his annotations and other writings, and to account of him as a very pious, learned judicious man. In this exposition of Grotius there is as much an interpretation of an affirmative by interp…sing a negation as in mine; the like I may say of other passages in the New Testament, as when it is said Heb. 11.12. foreign dead or killed of Abraham then alive, Matth. 12.49. he that doth the will of his father in heaven is Christs mother, who never bare him in the womb, Matth. 12.5. they prophane, who did holy service, Matth. 19.12. they made themselves Eunuchs, who were not gelded.
The Dr. adds. With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given, the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer, i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbelief, and this sense inforced by the interrogation, v. 16. For what knowest thou, O woman, whether thou shalt save the man, &c. And by S. Peters aphorism of daily observation 1 Pet. 3.1. the husband that obeyes not the word, i. e. the unbeliever, may probably bee gained by the conversation of the wife, and then let him impartially pass judgement, which is the fairest and easiest rendering.
Answ. Content: If he will but take notice of this one thing (besides many more) that the unbelieving husband, mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14. is said to be sanctified even then when he was an unbeliever. Which is proved from the text. 1. The unbelieving huusband, and wife, v. 14. are the same with the unbelieving husband and wife mentioned v. 12, 13. for the expression v. 14. is rela…ive to v. 12, 13. otherwise it were impertinent to resolve the question, and the particle [for v. 14.] shewing it to be a reason of the determination v. 12, 13. plainly proves it to bee meant of the same persons who continued unbelievers. 2. From v. 15. where the resolution of the doubt is continued, But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart; which is not to bee expounded of him that was an unbeliever but is not, but of him who is when he departs, which is confirmed in that he is opposed to a brother or sister, who if he were converted should be a brother. 3. From v. 16. where still the unbeliever mentioned v. 12, 13, 14, 15. is supposed to remain an unbeliever, else why should his saving be made doubtfull and contingent? And if the Dr. stand to his own conceit, as if v. 16. exactly agreed with v. 14. it must be so construed by himself. 4. His own Tertullian who saith ex sanctificato alterutro sexu, not utraque, and Hierome, and all other that add fidelem, v. 14. and all the interpreters I know, that do make the sanctifying to be v. 14. in disparity of religion, do agree in this, that the unbeliever v. 14. is meant of one that continues an unbeliever, otherwise he should not be distinguished from the believer, who was also an unbeliever formerly. Which if but observed, I dare put it to any Reader of ordinary capacity to judge between us, whether the Doctors sense be not so far from being the fairest and easiest, that it is indeed a foul one, such as doth imply a contradiction to the Apostles words, the Dr. supposing the unbeliever v. 14. once such but not so then, the Apostle supposing him to continue so, the Dr. expounding it thus; He that was once an unbeliever, another then the unbeliever meant v. 12, 13. hath been sanctified by the believing wife, that is converted; and the Apostle, He that is still an unbeliever, the same mentioned v. 12, 13. is sanctified; and whether mine [The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow: For though he be an unbeliever, yet in or to his wife, he is as if he were sanctified; it's all one in respect of lawfull [omitted by the Dr.) conjugal use as if he were sanctified] be not the fairest, easiest, and most congruous sense, that is to be given of those words 1 Cor. 7.14.
The Dr. goes on thus; His 2d. reason is, because, though the Dr. deny it, yet I aver that the notion of foreign for to as a sign of the Dative case, is found more then once in the N. T. The truth of this I must now examine, by the proofs offered for the affirmation. And his first proof is, from Matth. 17.12. foreign, This, saith he, cannot be eluded, because the same speech is Mark. 9.13. foreign and rendred by Beza in the former place fecerunt ei, they did to him. 2. Whereas the Dr. saith, foreign is used for foreign, upon him or against him, it had been meet the Dr. should have given one instance at least, of such construction, which, saith he, I do not believe he can do. To this I answer, 1. By two ready instances in one verse, Luk. 23.31. foreign; if they do these things (our ordinary English reads, in a green tree, but the sense and propriety directs us to) on the green tree, what shall be done on the dry? here is the very phrase that is used in that place of Matthew, foreign, as foreign.
Answ. I did aver more then the Dr. sets down, that the notion of foreign for [to] may with good congruity and Grammatical analogy be affixt to it, 1 Cor. 7.14. and I used these words left out by the Dr. whereas he saith (meaning the Dr) foreign is used for foreign on him or against him, and that this is an ordinary acception, of foreign for foreign; I grant that it is an ordinary acception to use foreign for foreign, but not in the sense hee here conceives, to wit, as foreign notes on or against a person. Now the Doctors instance is but in one verse, and therefore shewes not the ordinary acception, and then whereas I expected an instance of foreign for foreign, as it notes on or against a person, hee brings an instance of foreign on a tree, and this is not of foreign for foreign against, which had been more for his purpose, but for foreign on, though in the sense of [on him] foreign rather answers to foreign, then foreign. Yet the Dr. brings no authority but his own for this his conceit of foreign for on, Luk. 23.31. I add; that though the Latin and English translators I have yet looked into, do render foreign Luk. 23.31. by in not on, super or contrà (which are the Drs. notions) yet I find Diodati in his Italian translation reading, al legno verde al legno secco, which I take to be as much [to] as if it were expressed by ligno viridi, and ligno sicco or arido, without a preposition, and if so, the Dr. hath brought a text which further confirms my conceit against himself. In which I am the more confident, because when an object patient, or a subject suffering is expressed with the verb foreign or foreign, it is either never or very rarely said, foreign, or foreign, but foreign or foreign, as in Luk. 1.25, 49, 68. & 2.48. & 6.11, 23, 26, 27, 31. & 8.39. & 18.41. & 20.15. Acts 4.16. & 9.13. Luk. 1.38. & 14.12. & 19.9. Acts 2.43. & 7.40. & 20.3. & 22.6, 17. omitting other writers. Which is an argument to me, that Luk. 23.31. foreign is redundant, and that it is best transiated, to the dry, to the green, and so the Dr. hath given an instance for my notion, not for his own.
He saith further. And then for S. Marks using (in the parallel place) foreign for foreign] that proves not that foreign was rendundant in S. Matthew, or that it was a bare signe of the Dative case, it being free to S. Mark to use any other expression, different from S. Matthew so he retained the sense, as it is clear in this place he doth, doing injuries to him, being all one in effect with upon or against him, though the phrases are not the same, which no way inferrs that when the change of the phrase changes the sense, it were lawfull so to vary it, as in the place we have in hand (foreign) 'tis on both sides supposed to do.
Answ. The Dr. omits these words of mine [However if he could, yet me thinks it should satisfie, that foreign notes no more than foreign ▪ and is a sign of the Dative case, because Mark who seems to have abbreviated Matthew, so expresseth it, and the common use of foreign whe… it notes dealings of man to man whether good or bad, is usually expressed by the Dative case, as Matth. 7.12. & 18.12 & 20.32. & 21.36, 40. & 25.40, 45.] to which the Dr. makes no answer, and that which he saith here, doth confirm my notion. For if it were free to Mark to use any other expression different from Matthew, so he retained the sense, and yet he doth not use foreign but put onelyonly the Dative case to express the same; that Matthew did it appears that foreign and foreign are to the same sense and phrase, to express injuries done to John Baptist, and that foreign in Matthew is redundant, and nothing expressed by it but what is expressed in Mark in the Dative case without it. What the Dr. means when he saith ['tis on both sides supposed (foreign) changes the sense, and so it is unlawful to vary it] I do not understand, our present question is not whether it bee lawfull to change a phrase when the sense is not changed, and unlawful when it is: but whether foreign Matth. 17.12. bee redundant and a signe of the Dative case: this is yet unanswerably proved to bee by this, that Mark. 9.13. the same phrase and matter is expressed without it, and there it notes onelyonly the Dative case, and that is the usual manner of expression without foreign, and therefore foreign must be taken as redundant, and a sign of the Dative case onelyonly, Matth. 17.12.
The Dr. goes on, A second instance which he conceivs cannot bee eluded, is Col. 1.23. foreign, which was preached to every creature, and this he proves to be the onelyonly rendering; 1. Because foreign to preach, is commonly with a Dative case of the object, and though 1 Tim. 3.16. it is foreign, yet our translators and the Vulgar, and Beza read it, unto the Gentiles, as if there it noted onelyonly a dative case; and if it were among the Gentipes there, yet here Col. 1.2…. it cannot be so, because the object is in the singular number, but foreign when it is for among, is joyned still with a noun of the plural. And 2. that which, saith he, puts this out of all doubt, is, that the phrase Col. 1. answers Mark 16.15. foreign. But to all this the answer is ready, by observing the exact notation of foreign the whole creation (as we render it Rom. 8.22.) as that signifies the whole, but especially the Gentile world, and accordingly is exprest by foreign, Matth. 28. and farther explained by foreign the whole world, to which in S. Mark they are appointed to go, when they were thus to preach the Gospel foreign to this whole creation. Now of foreign in this notion it is clear, that though it be in the singular number, yet that hath the power of the plural, as the word [world] and the like, which every body knowes is a noun of multitude, and so is creation, when it is thus taken for the whole created world, meaning the world of men, the nations or people of the world. And then there can be no doubt but foreign] is most exactly thus to be rendred, preached in, or among the whole creation, as Gal. 1.16. foreign preach in the nations, or among the Gentiles, and so 1 Tim. 3.16. also, though the sense being no way altered by rendering it unto the whole creation, or every creature, and the Gentiles, it matters little though it be promiscuously thus rendred, which yet must not prescribe for other places where the sense is so much changed by the divers rendring as in this case, foreign] is observable, where therefore the litteral rendering being retained, we are not reasonably to conclude any more from it, then that litteral reading will afford us. As for the parallel phrase Mark. 16. that doutless can prove nothing; 1. Because the places are not nor can be thought parallel. 2. Because if they were (as of Matth. 28. and Mark 16. hath been granted) yet the parallel lying onelyonly in the sense, and that being all one whether they preacht to or among the Gentiles, this no way concludes that the phrases are the same, or the foreign in one redundant, which is the onelyonly thing, for the proving of which this parallel is produced, but of that I have formerly spoken.
Answ. Had the Dr. shewed any one interpreter that ever rendred foreign Col. 1.23. by inter omnem creaturam, among every creature, or that foreign as it signifies inter or among or either of these prepositions, is put in Latin or English before a noun of multitude in the singular number, he had said more then I yet deem hee can, or I think any other Grammarian, nor do I take the word foreign to be a noun of multitude, there may bee foreign though there were but one individual, though I grant foreign notes many creatures, nor do I conceive it good sense to render it in every creature, sith the term [creature] doth note persons not place, and to be preached in every creature, would imply such a sense as will not suit with the matter, which is conceived by many interpreters, to note the accomplishment of what Christ appointed Mark 16.15. which leaving out the preposition foreign, and the common use of foreign to preach being with a Dative case of the object, I did infer that foreign is redundant and a note of the Dative case, as Pasor before me in his Lexicon of the word foreign of which he saith, saepe ex Hebraismo redundat Col. 1.23. foreign, predicati omni creaturae. Sure if it were most exactly rendered, as the Dr. saith, preached in or among the whole creation, it is marvail none hit on this afore the Dr. as they have done Gal. 3.16. 1 Tim. 3.16. Whether Col. 1.23. and Mar. 16.15. be parallel in the manner I make them, is to be referred to the Readers judgement, when he shall compare them together. Sure I finde all these, Beza, Camerarius, Piscator, Zonchius, Grotius, Davenant, Trapp, the new Annotations, Elton, referring to and explaining one by the other, and the Dr. confessing the sense the same, every Grammarian that understands Greek may plainly see the phrase to be the same save that foreign is added Col. 1.…3. and therefore from all these I infer as most probable, and to me certain, that foreign is redundant, that it's onelyonly the sign of the dative case of the object, that it is most truely rendered as our Translators and many more rendered, to every creature, that is, as Gorram expounds it, universis hominibus, to all, or all sorts of men. As for the Drs. cautions about prescribing and concluding, they are impertinent to the present thing concerning Col. 1.23. whether foreign be redundant the sign of the Dative case there. Whether foreign 1 Cor. 7.14. he to be rendered [to] whether the sense will bear it, whether it make any other change in the sense then is fit, or any more be concluded, then is deducible is before and after to be discussed. Hitherto it appears not but that I said right, Matth. 17.12. Col. 1.23. cannot be eluded.
The Dr. goes on, His third instance is foreign Acts 4.12. which he cannot yet conceive, but that it is better rendred, to men, then among men. And his reasons are; First, because foreign hath most regularly and consequently (it should be constantly) a dative case of the person after it. Secondly, because if it had been among men, it had been to be placed after foreign other, there is no other name among men, given, but being placed after given, it is to be expounded as referred to given not to other, and so must bee read, to men, not among men. Thirdly, It seems no good sense, nor true, that Christ was a name given among men, for though he were among men, yet he was given from above, To all which, he adds the judgement of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 1…. cited by Beza, and a parallel phrase foreign for foreign Acts 7.44. To this I answer. First, That 'tis true when foreign hath any case of the person following and governed by it, that is constantly the dative, but that is no way applicable to this phrase, foreign, for there the persons foreign are governed by the preposition foreign not by foreign. To the second, that the construction by among, is very good, placing it after given, there is no other name given among men, i. e. no means of salvation afforded by God, and continued among men. To the third, That Christs being given from above, no way prejudges his being given among men, both because the benefit of this gift is a common donative, distributed among men, and also because this gift is dispenc'd in form of humane flesh, Christ is become man, and to be found and seen among men.
Answ. 1. That the persons foreign men, are governed by the proposition foreign, and not by foreign, is not rightly said by the Dr. First, Because the placing of it next after foreign shews it is governed of foreign given. Secondly, Because if [men] were not governed of [given] the participle [given] were superfluous. For he sense would be the same, and the speech were as good language if it were left out, and the reading onelyonly thus; neither is there another name under heaven among men, whereby we must be saved. …. That name whereby we must be saved] should be put for [meanes of salvation] and not a person distinctly is both besides the usual acception of the term [name] and the drift of the words, which shew that by [name] is meant [person] and makes the speech false; For the preaching of the Gospel by Prophets, and Apostles, were means of salvation afforded by God, and continued among men, besides Christ and his preaching. 3. That this gift was dispenc'd in form of humane flesh, that Christ was become man, and to bee f…und and seen among men, shews not that he was given among men, but to be among men, his giving was from above, as he often saith, that he came down from heaven, Joh. 6.38, 41, 50, 51, 58.33. given from heaven, v. 32. Joh. 8.23. ye are from beneath, I am from above. Joh. 3.31. He that cometh from above is above all, he that cometh from heaven is above all; which is contrary to what Peter (as the Dr. expounds him) speaks here, that he was a name under heaven given among men. And the other reason, because the benefit of this gift is a common donative, and distributed among men, though it perverts the sense, putting for [the name] which signifies the person [the benefit] and confounding the person whereby we must be saved with the benefit, which is no other then salvation, yet it makes for my sense. For what is it to be a common donative, distributed among men, but to be given to men. So that in the issue, the Dr. notwithstanding his strugling is not able to avoid it, but that it serves my purpose of proving foreign redundant, and a signe of the Dative case. What the Dr. saith to what I add out of Beza annot. on Acts 4.12. the Dr. might have remembred (if he ever read it) that in my Examen. part. 1. §. 4. I did take notice that Irenaeus was a Greek and wrote in Greek, but now onelyonly we have his works in Latin except some few fragments, and Beza so great a learned man, as had few equals, especially in the Greek language, it is likely knew so too; and therefore the Dr. might have omitted that intimation, as if wee were forgetfull thereof. And it had been fair if the Dr. had taken notice, that Beza alledged first the old interpreter, as reading [datum hominibus, given to men] and Irenaeus (meaning his translator, who is commonly cited as Irenaeus] after him, and that I added Camerarius, which the Dr. saith nothing to, but hath a snatch at Beza's alleging Acts 7.44. which I rest not on, sith it may be read [with or among] as well as [to] which is agreeable with our l…st translation, Our Fathers had the Tabernacle of witness. But I follow the Dr. in his debates, which it is indeed pitty the Reader or the Dr. should be exercised with, being fit for better undertakings then these, which he is detained with upon his own motion, as one that is cedere nescius to a plain truth, not in obedience to me who never injoyned him this exercise.
He saith, For a 4th. instance, he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16. 2 Pet. 1.5. That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith, that he was pleased to reveall his own son foreign, and when I had rendred that by or through me to others, This exposition, saith he, makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly. This strange undecent expression, I wish had been spared, for certainly there was little temptation for it: why, I pray, might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure, say, God was pleased through me to reveal his son, and by way of explication (and withall to denote the designation of that Apostle to his peculiar province, as the Apostle of the uncircumcision) add, that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Certainly every explication of an obscurer or narrower, by a clearer or larger phrase, is not inept tautology, but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly, have always been full of. And yet 2dly, the later part here, of his preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles, as Peter and John were of the Jews wheresoever dispersed) is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and paraphrasing the former part of it; for in that those others had not been defined, who they were, or limited to the Gentiles. This Mr. T. adverted not in his objection, I desire he will now take notice of it.
Answ. I could not well have spared the expression, having temptation for it from Dr. Hammonds mis-interpreting the Apostles speech, so as to make it according to the Drs. sense, though not according to the Apostles, an inept tautology; which however strange, yet was no undecent expression, there being nothing that reflects on the Apostle but on the Dr. tending to shew the absurdity of his interpretation, not of the Apostles words. From which the Dr. doth not relieve himself by his answer here. For the later phrase doth not express the same more clearly, there is neither a copulative conjunction nor dis…junctive, expressed or implied, nor any other particle which may shew the later phrase to be exegitical of the former, but the particle foreign doth plainly shew that, foreign, the Evangelizing or preaching the Gospel, to be m…ntioned as the end or consequent of the revelation, and therefore not the same act. Besides the preaching the Gospel by a man is no where termed the revealing of Christ by him to others, being known to him before, but the making known to the person, and revelation is still made Gods, Christs, or his spirits act, and hath a Dative case of the person who is the object to whom the thing is revealed added to it, as Matth. 11.25, 27. & 16.17. Luk. 10.21, 22. John 12.38. 1 Cor. 2.10. & 14 30. Eph. 3.5. Phil. 3.15. 1 Pet. 1.12. and this must needs be the meaning, the words before being, whereas before he was zealous of the Law against the Christian profession, when it pleased God who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his son in him; or as Beza annot. in locum foreign id est mihi, to me, which plainly shews that this revelation was to him when he was called, which is called the revelation of Jesus Christ to him, v. 12. and made the proof of his calling to bee an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, v. 1. and the reason why he preached without conferring with the Apostles And thus doth Perkins com. on Gal. 1.16. rightly explain it, to reveal his son in me or to me, and to express the manner or form of his calling or conversion, and expounds it thus, to teach me the doctrine of the redemption of mankinde by Jesus Christ, and the words to preach Christ among the Gentiles the end of his vocation. As for that which the Dr. desires me now to take notice of, I do, though I think it needless, sith the tautology I conceived to follow on the Drs. exposition, is not in the object but in the act, revealing his son by the Apostle, being no other then his preaching, which makes the speech nugatory, it pleased God to preach his son by me, that I might preach. As for the place of 2 Pet. 1.5. sith the Dr. makes no more answer I need make no more reply, and I still aver that all the places which I brought out of the N. T. have the notion of foreign for to, as a signe of the Da…ive case.
To the places out of the Greek of the old Testament, he tels me, that three onelyonly places in the whole Old T. would never infer that so it must bee in the New (which I grant) and there being no pretense of necessity that thus it wust be here (which is also granted, except a necessity of a more fair, easie, and congruous sense then any other rendering) these three will be of no avail to me. But this is not yeelded. For the two first, Deut. 28.60. & 2 Kings 5.25. foreign, vulg. adhaerebit tibi & semini tuo, being used constantly in the N. T. with a Dative Luk. 10.11. and 15.15. Acts 5.13. & 8.29. & 9.26. & 10.28. & 17.34. Rom. 12.9. 1 Cor. 6.16, 17, &c. it is a strong presumption that foreign is redundant, and onelyonly the signe of the Dative case. And the other place Psal. 68.18. compared with Eph. 4.8. hath some force, it being probable that the Apostle expressed what the LXX meant by foreign. But it was not of this last onelyonly, but of all together, I said I took them to be more then enough to refute the Drs. speech, that the notion, wherein foreign signifies to, which is a signe of the Dative case, is never found once to belong to it in the N. T. nor can with any tollerable congruity or Grammatical analogy be affixt to it.