4 The Birth-Priviledge and Covenant- holinef Ch. 39 fame place telleth you, it is not to be (inner' by nature, as thofe which are borne of the Heathen. An Author unto whom Mailer Tombes ought to owe more revererence, then to make a jeere of this his parallel, of two fo full parallel Scriptures, when in my Birth.Fri= viledge I demanded whether thofe that follow this interpetation of legitimation and baflardy, will give the like interpretation of Gal. z. i 5. (which was the test I had in hand) which is every way parallel (as I faid) and anfwkers in either of the branches; Mafter Tombes in- flead of an anfwer, paies me home in his wonted manner with a jeere, and laies, 1 may apply to him, the wards of im in the Poet, Cer. nimits an qui amant,ipfi fibi (amnia ftngant, &c. Do we fee or do they that love, faine dreames to themfelves; for 'cannot tell how to in- terpret this paf fage,that i Cor. 7.14. and Gal. 2. r 5. are every way parallel, and the one to be interpreted by the other, any otherwifè then as a conceit in a dreame; like as When the fancy from gold and a, mountain compounds a golden mountain. Though he may deale with me as he lifts, yet Mafter Cartwriglst(wnom in his Forerunner be fo much profe{fes to reverence) is an Author that challenges more at his hands, I well know, and acquainted the Reader, page 2. that the Apoffles (cope, Gal. 2. t 5. is another, viz. to prove that Jewes and Gentiles have both one and the fame juftification, not by works of the Law, but by Faith, but falling upon the men- tion of the Jew and Gentile, he gives them characters (as Malter Cartwright well obferves) fully parallel to that which is here de- livered, 3. The argument thus underftood, is untrue; The ftreffe is who'ly laid upon the beleevtng party, as to the holineffe of the if- fue twice over; The unbeleever is meerly paffive in it when the childe bath legitimation equally from both. Againfl his interpre- tation,and for mine (whichChamier affirmes to be Calvini& om- nium noflrorum) take thefe arguments. i. That holineffe which ne- ceffarily follows to the iffue, from the faneïification of an unbe- leeving by a beleeving yoke- fellow,is Covenant- holinefTe, and not legitimation : But the bolíneffe in this place of the Apoftle necef- farily followes to the iffue, from the fane?lification of an unbelee- ver by a beleever; Ergo it is Covenant- holineffe, not legitimation. 2. That which is derived from the eminency, of one parent above another, ant not equally from both,is not 'legitimation : But this holineffe is derived from the eminence of one .parent (viz. the 3. tintine, Arguments e- viocing the holineire in the text not to be legitimation. be- pa=e....ese,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=