Observe now the language used. Gospel blessings, when spoken of as embraced in the Abrahamic covenant, are called "an inheritance," Gal. iii. 18; or "the promise," Rom. iv. 16; true believers in Christ are called "the seed or children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. 29. and thus "heirs of the promises." Heb. vi. 17.

son,

de

What then, again, is the nature of the transaction, recorded Gen. xxi. 9-14? Sarah saw Ishmael, the son of her bond-woman Hagar, "mocking," abusing, or as Paul says, Gal. iv. 29, "persecuting" her son Isaac; and desires Abraham, in consequence, to cast out this bond-woman and her claring that the son of the bond-woman should not inherit with her son Isaac. Her meaning is plain; the word she uses, cast out, is applied, as well as the corresponding word ixPazzo, used by Paul, to repudiating a wife, and casting off a son. See Lev. xxi. 7, Hebrew and Septuagint; also Eccles. vii. 28. Ezra, x. 3. Jud. xi. 2. 7. She wished Ishmael to be entirely excluded from all that might be inherited by virtue of being a son of Abraham. Further than this, probably, she did not think. But why was the thing very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son? He knew the spiritual nature of the promise made to him, (see Heb. xi. 9, 10. 14—16.) and may he not have felt that to comply with Sarah's request would be to cut him off from all these? But whatever were his views of the consequences, or his feelings in relation to them, God commnads him, v. 12, "Let it not then be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bond-woman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." This is the important passage, and fortunately it has found an inspired interpreter. Rom. ix. 6-9. "They are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Jacob, are they all children, but, In Isaac shall thy seed he called:' that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of promise, and accounted for the seed." In this passage, those denominated Israel, children, children of God, children of the promise, are, according to the Apostle, those in whose case the word of God, in his promises to Abraham, (and we know what they are,) takes effect, v. 6.; and they are distinguished from those, who like Ishmael, are merely the descendants of Abraham by natural generation, to whom, as is necessarily implied, these promises were never

made. And this confined reference of the promise of the Abrahamic, i. e. of the Gospel covenant, Paul proves, v. 7, by this passage; "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," i. e. according to Paul, all who shall in fact inherit these promises, are the subject of special promise, as Isaac was: this must be the meaning of v. 8.

Now supply the reasoning, "Hearken to Sarah, and cast out Ishmael, for neither he, nor others shall participate in the spiritual blessings of my covenant, by virtue of their natural descent from you; but only those, who like Isaac, are the subjects of special promise."

If there is any coherency here, between the command and the reason assigned for it, we have in them plain ground for two remarks.

1. We have in Ishmael, an actual case of non-participation in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, i. e. of the Gospel.

2. The casting forth of Ishmael was an act expressive of this fact.

Nothing can be plainer than these inferences, and nothing need be said to prove them. A few more preliminary remarks, and we shall be ready to direct our attention directly to the passage in the Epistle.

And first, on what ground did Ishmael stand with relation to the covenant of grace? The facts can be easily brought together. He was, by natural descent, a son of Abraham, he was circumcised by virtue of this descent, Gen. xvii. 23. he lived to at least the age of sixteen with Abraham in the land of Canaan, (compare Gen. xvi. 16. and xxi. 5. 8.) and doubtless, united in the worship of God by sacrifice, &c. at the altar. But he was not the subject of special promise, and did not inherit the spiritual blessings promised to Abraham and his believing seed.

2. What was the relation which Isaac bore to the covenant of grace? He was a subject of special promise, and therefore became an inheritor of all the spiritual blessings of the covenant. Rom. ix. 7, 8. "In Isaac shall thy seed be called: that is," &c. That the words of the promise, v. 9. refer to his being a child also in faith, is proved by the simple language of these verses.

3. On what ground did the Jews of the Apostle's days, who clung to the law as a rule of life and a system of salvation, stand, with regard to the covenant of grace? They were

descendants of Abraham by natural generation, they were circumcised, performed the worship prescribed by the law, and wishing to be justified by the law, Christ was made of no effect unto them. Gal. v. 3.

4. What relation did real Christians of the Apostle's days bear to the covenant of grace? They, like Isaac, were subjects of promise. Gal. iv. 28; and in consequence of having believed in Christ, became Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise made to him. Gal. iii. 29.

These things being undeniable, it follows, That the relation of Christians to the covenant of grace, and of Isaac to the covenant, are the same relation. And Isaac, as an instance of an heir to the promises, differed in no respect from the individual believers of the Apostle's days, except in having preceded them by about 2000 years.

It equally follows that the relation which the Jews of the Apostle's time who clung to the law, bore to the covenant of grace, and the relation which Ishmael bore to that covenant, are the same relation. He lived, indeed, 430 years before the establishment of the Mosaic dispensation, but all the circumstances in which those who lived under that dispensation, differed from him, were not of a kind calculated to affect their common relation to the covenant of grace. The principal circumstances in the situation of each of the parties are enumerated above, and are the same in both. The condition therefore of Ishmael was the condition of all Judaizing unbelievers of the Apostle's time: and his fate of exclusion from the blessings of the covenant of grace must inevitably be theirs, provided they remained on that ground. And this fate, having in his case, already taken place, it would afford a striking instance and exemplification of the impending fate of the rest.

Let us turn now to the passage in the Epistle. The Galatian Christians had, soon after Paul left them, been visited by teachers, who taught that "unless they were circumcised and kept the law, they could not be saved." And they had so far forsaken the doctrines of grace which Paul had preached to them, that though they still believed Christ to be the Son of God, they grounded their hope of salvation principally on their observance of the Jewish law. Paul, with a warmth of zeal unsurpassed in any of his writings, testifies against this perversion of the Gospel, and their foolish and ruinous apostacy. He shows that men, now, like Abraham, were

justified by faith only, ch. iii. 1-9; that all who stood upon the ground of the law, were and must be under the curse, v. 10; but that Christ had suffered the penalty of the law, v. 13, so that by simply believing in him, a man could obtain the blessing of Abraham, or justification, v. 14. To the objection that the law was a dispensation established by God, and therefore binding, he answers, that the system of salvation by faith had been established long before the other, v. 17; and that the law was, in fact, not intended to be an independent scheme by which men were to be saved, v. 18, 19. but was intended to act a part subservient to the Gospel, until the full establishment of the latter, and was then to be set aside, v. 25. He then commences and continues in a strain of urgent intreaty, and strong expostulation, through the first part of chap. iv. and closes what he says on this subject by referring to the history of Isaac and Ishmael, which has been considered.

The question now is, what was his design in making this reference? It has, I think, been proved above, that we have in Isaac an actual instance of one standing upon the ground which the Apostles wished the Galatians to take and maintain; and in Ishmael an instance of one, on the ground from which he wished to guard them. We should say then, a priori, that when referring in this place to Isaac and Ishmael, he probably designed to show, by the actual instance of these two individuals, the different condition and fate of those who embraced the Gospel as he preached it, and of those who believed and embraced the doctrines of the false teachers. The reason for this supposition is, that the historic narrative to which he refers, affords an instance pertinent to his purpose, exactly a case calculated to enforce all he had been urging. Now, is it probable that he has referred to this passage containing facts capable of direct application to his object, and yet passed by these, and made another and very different use of it?

But that he has referred to it, for the express purpose just supposed probable, appears to be proved by his own words. The introduction has the aid of an appeal to a case parallel to theirs, v. 21. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise." And, throughout the whole passage, there is no intimation that Isaac

and Ishmael are referred to with any other design, v. 28. "Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." v. 29. "But as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture, &c." So far, then, the design of the Apostle seems plain, and the execution of it clear and forcible.

With

But what shall we do with verses 24-26? Are they not inconsistent with the explanation just given? If they are, it must fall to the ground. The Apostle says, v. 24, "A riva ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα. The signification of ἀλληγορούμενα is first to be considered. 'Aaanyopia is defined by Donnegan, to signify, 1. A discourse, or saying, bearing a different sense from the obvious one. 2. An explanation in a different sense. So, also, anyopéw signifies, 1. To speak in such a manner, as to carry a sense different from the obvious meaning of the words: 2. To interpret in such a manner. Donnegan agree, in substance, all others who have given definitions of these words. Scapula defines aanyopiw, “Aliud verbis, aliud sensu ostendo. Sæpe etiam est aliter interpretari quam verba præ se ferunt." And anyopełσoaι dicuntur ea quorum interpretatio affertur diversa a verbis quibus scribuntur aut dicuntur. Est etiam allegorice dici." The passive, anyoperofat, then, signifies, 1. To have a meaning different from the obvious one: 2. To be explained in a sense different from the obvious meaning. Next, is iori ananyoρούμενα synonymous with ἀλληγορείται? Matthæi says, Grammar, § 559, that the participle with the finite verb, makes merely a circumlocution for the proper verb; and participles of all verbs, with the verb iuí. He then cites many classical examples, as Iliad, ε. 873, τετληότες εἰμέν for τετλήκομεν. Herodotus, I. 57, ἦσαν ἵεντες for ἵεσαν. This idiom is not less common in the New Testament. Mar. xiii. 20. The stars of heaven orta ixxIATOVTES, &c. See Winer, § 39. 2. He adds, however, in a note, that sometimes the iva is to be taken separately, and then the participle stands for an adjective. Mar. v. 5, 6. If the present is an instance of the first sort of usage, i e. ἐστὶν αλληγορούμενα for ἀλληγορεῖται, then, according to the above definitions, the words will mean either, "Which things are explained allegorically; or, which things are spoken allegorically." The rendering so common now, "Which things may be (in accommodation) explained allegorically," has no foundation in grammar, and is founded on