The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 49
CHAP. XLIX.
Rom. 11. 16. Vindicated.
SECT. I.
The Series of the Apoſtles diſpute opened, and ſeveral Arguments deduced.
THe next Scripture for proof of the Covenant in New Teſtament-times takes in children with the parents,The Series of the Apoſtles diſpute. is Rom. 11. 16. For if the firſt fruits be holy, the lump is alſo holy, and if the root be holy, ſo are the branches; which Scripture, that it may be aright underſtood, we muſt look into the whole Series of the Apoſtles diſpute in that place, Having before largely diſcourſed of the rejection of the Jewes, out of a preſent Church-ſtate and fellowſhip with the call of the Gentiles, and their preſent Adoption, now ſomewhat to allay the ſeeming harſhneſſe of that doctrine of his againſt the Jewes, and to take down the inſultings of the Gentiles over that people, in this chapter he ſpeaks to both. 1. To the Jews by way of mitigation, limiting this doctrine of their rejection with a double caution. 1. That it was not total. 2. That it was not final. That it was not total, he firſt aſſerts, ſecondly proves; aſſerts, ver. 1. I ſay then, hath God caſt away his people? God forbid. Proves by a threefold argument. 1. By inſtance in himſelf, verſe 1. For I am alſo an Iſraelite, of the ſeed of Abraham, of the Tribe of Benjamin, and he doth not diſpute for his own rejection. 2. By inſtance in the elect of God, verſe 2. God hath not caſt away his people which he foreknew. 3. From a parallel Scripture, out of 1 King. 18. which parallel he firſt lays down, verſe 2, 3, 4▪ W…t ye not what the Scripture ſaith of Elias, how he maketh interceſſion to God againſt Iſrael, ſaying Lord they have killed thy Prophets, and digged down thy Altars, And I am left alone, and they ſeek my life? But what ſaith the anſwer of God unto him? I have reſerved to my ſelfe ſeven thouſand men, who have not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal. And afterward applies, verſe 5. Even ſo then at this preſent time alſo, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And ſo falls into a digreſſion concerning grace and works, verſe 6. to the 11. 2. He ſpeaks to the Gentiles, and to take down their inſultation over the Jewes, he ſhewes that this rejection of theirs is not final. And this, as the former, is 1. Aſſerted, verſe 11. I ſay then, have they ſtumbled that they ſhould fall? (viz. irrecoverably fall) God forbid. 2. Proved by giving account of a twofold end of this rejection of the Jewes. 1. The call of the Gentile, verſe 12. But rather through their fall ſalvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealouſie. 2. A more glorious returne of the Jews, in emulation of the Gentiles, verſe 12. Now if th… fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminiſhing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulneſſe? Hereupon he falls upon a large diſcourſe of his zeal toward them, and their re-ingraffing, verſ. 13. 14, 15. adding the words of the Text, If the firſt fruits be holy, the lump alſo is holy, and if the root be holy, ſo are the branches. This Para… us makes a farther Argument, for proof that the Jews ſhall again be called; Gomarus makes it an encouragement to the Apoſtle to endeavour their call, howſoever here is a double ſimilitude, One drawn from the Ceremonial Law, If the firſt fruits be holy, the lump is alſo holy. The other from Nature, If the root be holy, ſo are the branches. The firſt is only mentioned, the ſecond is largely commented upon. In both we ſee, 1. A ſuppoſition 2. An affirmation. The ſuppoſition is, of the holineſſe of the firſt fruits, the holineſſe of the root. The affirmation is, the whole lump is holy, the branches are holy. This laſt is grounded on a principle in nature univerſally true. As is the root, ſo is the branch, they are both of one and the ſame nature; As is the one, ſo is the other. Which he applies to the ſtate of the Church of God; firſt to the Church of the Jewes, and that 1. In their ancient eſtate, when they were a people of God, in Covenant-relation, holy, ſo ſtiled of him frequently in Scripture. 2. In their preſent ſtate, for a great part broken off, and ſo made no people▪ 3. In their future condition when they ſhould be called of God, and as it were riſen from the dead. Secondly, he applies it alſo to the Gentiles. 1. In their ancient eſtate, as no people. 2. In their preſent eſtate, made a people of God, in the place of the Jewes. 3. In their poſſible eſtate, and condition, to be rejected and caſt off▪ On which we may ground ſeveral undeniable Poſitions, ſome concerning the ſubject, [root and branch] ſome concerning the predicate [holy].Poſitions premiſed for the right underſtanding. 1. Of the root and branch.
Firſt, concerning the ſubject root and branch, in this place (as by way of Metaphor) ſet out the eſtate of parent and childe, anceſtor and iſſue. 2. The whole body of the Church is compared to a tree, to an Olive tree. 3. The root of this tree (viz. the firſt ſupreme univerſal root) is Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob. Not Abraham alone, ſo Iſhmaelites would be of the body. Nor Abraham with Iſaac alone, ſo the Edomites from Eſau would have been taken in▪ But the Apoſtle in this chapter (from Old Teſtament-authority) excludes both of them, Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, are therefore joyntly the root. 4. The branches of this tree are of two ſorts. …ome natural, iſſuing from the root by deſcent; others ingraffed put in by way of inſition. The …ewes were natural branches, deſcending from the loynes of Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob. The Gentiles are branches by inſition put into the ſtock, the natural branches being broken off. 5. The fatneſſe of this tree is the glory of Ordinances, of which the whole Church partakes, or as ſome ſay, Chriſt is the fatneſſe, but that is onelyonly as he is tendered in Ordinances, for he walks in the middeſt of the Golden Candleſticks. In which ſenſe onelyonly we may yeeld that Chriſt is that fatneſſe.
Secondly,2. Of the holineſſe here mentioned. concerning the predicate, Holy. There is one and the ſame holineſſe goes through the whole tree, all the branches natural and engraffed through the whole Church, and all the children of it Jews and Gentiles; The whole of this holineſſe is from one Original root, and therefore one and the ſame. 2. This holineſſe is ſuch as is communicable from parent to childe, and neceſſarily communicated, as a root communicates ſap to the branches. This is ſo plaine, that if it be denied, all the Apoſtles diſpute falls. 3. It is no holineſſe of inheſion, but relation, not qualitative, but federal. The holineſſe of the Jewes who were a holy Nation was ſuch; The holineſſe of the Gentiles can be no other. Holineſſe of inheſion is not communicable, but only holineſſe of relation. In holineſſe of inheſion the propoſition holds not▪ as, is the father, ſo, is the child, who knowes not that holy fathers have unholy children? regenerate parents have iſſue unregenerate.
Theſe things conſidered, it is evident, that, as the father is in regard of Church-ſtate, Covenant-holineſſe, ſo is the childe, both in the Church of the Jews and Gentiles: The father being without, the childe is without; the father being within, the childe is within, eo nomine, becauſe a branch of ſuch a root, a childe of ſuch a father, which is a full confirmation of the point in hand, that the childe is in Covenant with the father, and the perſon that actually enters Covenant, is not ſolely veſted in it. One ſtands upon the contrary part, and puts it to this iſſue for trial, Whether this ingraffing be into the viſible Church by profeſſion of Faith, or into the inviſible by Election and Faith; and concludes, that it is meant of the Church inviſible; which if he can make good, I ſhall confeſſe all Arguments drawn from hence (as to this point) are loſt; I would (to avoid impertinent cavils, and quarrels) each Text were brought to ſuch iſſue. I ſhall in the firſt place bring arguments to evince that the breaking off, and engraffing, is reſpective to the Church, as viſible, and then proceed to anſwer arguments from a late hand againſt it.
1. That ingraffing which is into Abraham, Arguments evincing the ingraffing to be into the Church only as viſible, and the breaking oft to be frō the Church as viſible.Iſa… and Jacob as a root is not an inviſible graffing by ſaving Faith and Election▪ This is plaine, we live not by power received from Abraham, Abraham cannot ſay he bears us up, in ſaving graces, and that without ſap from him, we can do nothing, But the ingraffing is into Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob as a root. This argument as is ſaid by one, were of force if Abraham were made a root by communication, and for prevention he is put to it to tell us of a root communicating nothing, but an exemplary root, or an exemplary cauſe of beleeving only; what an exemplary non-communicating root is or meanes, let the Reader Conſider.
Secondly, that ingraffing which cauſed diſputation and contention in ſome, emulation in others upon the ſight and report of it, was not by ſaving faith only into the inviſible body, but open, viſible, and apparant into the viſible body; But this ingraffing of the Gentiles into the Church of God, cauſed diſputation and contention in ſome, Acts 11. 2, 3. emulation in others, Deut. 32▪ 21. Rom 10. 19. Rom. 11. 14. this therefore was into the Church viſible.
Thirdly, That priviledge which is not reſtrained to ſome few inviſible Churches, but is the priviledge of all that are contained in it, and members of it, is not an inviſible work upon the heart to a ſaving change, but only an intereſt in viſible priviledges. This is evident, the inviſible work is not in all, Matth. 2…. 14. But this, here mentioned is the priviledge of the whole body, as is cleare in the Text, and adverſaries are conſtrained to acknowledge; Therefore the ingraffing is only into the viſible body. That priviledge wherein the Jewes while they were a people of God did tranſcend the Gentiles when they were no people, is the priviledge which theſe Gentiles have by their ingraffing, this is plain, verſe 17▪ But it is the priviledge of Ordinances in being viſibly related thus to God wherein Jews did then exceed Gentiles, as hath been largely ſhewn.
Fourthly, that Faith from which the Jews actually fell▪ and the Gentiles ſtood in danger to fall from, is not a ſaving juſtifying Faith, entituling to inviſible priviledges, but a Faith of profeſſion onelyonly giving a viſible title. This is plaine, unleſſe we will maintaine Bertius his Hymenem deſertur, and aſſert the Apoſtaſie of the Saints. But this Faith whereby the Gentiles are ingraffed, is a Faith from which the Jews fell, and from which they were in danger to fall, v. 20.
Fifthly, that reconciliation or ingraffing, which is oppoſite to caſting out of a viſible Church-ſtate, is an ingraffing into the Church viſible; But this reconciliation or ingraffing is oppoſite to the caſting out of a Church ſtate: This is plain, Matth. 21. 43. It is a caſting out of them that bore not fruit, and not a caſting off inviſible branches.
Sixthly, If the ſtate of the Jewes continued from the Apoſtles time to this day, be an excluſion from a viſible Church-ſtate, ſo that they are no people of God in name, then a viſible Church-ſtate is that which they loſt and the Gentiles gained; This is plaine. The ſtate in which they ſtand being rejected, is their ſtate of rejection; But their condition ſince that time, is an excluſion out of a viſible Church ſtate. This needs no proof: Therefore a viſible Church ſtate is that which the Jews loſt, and theſe gained. I wiſh that theſe arguments to which many more might be added, may be taken into conſideration, and for a cloſe of all, ſeeing it is peremptorily aſſerted that it is manifeſtly falſe, that the Chriſtian Gentiles were graffed into the ſame viſible Church with the Jews, for then they ſhould have been Circumciſed contrary to the determination, Acts 15. and that God hath quite taken away the viſible Church of the Jews, or to that purpoſe. This Error begetting many others, I wiſh that it may be a little better thought upon, whether it be the language of the Scriptures. I have learnt, that as we and they, have one and the ſame God; one and the ſame Faith; that is, the doctrine of Faith, one and the ſame Covenant, eat of one and the ſame ſpiritual meat, and drink of the ſame ſpiritual drink, one and the ſame expected heaven; ſo, we are one and the ſame Church Let us to that end further obſerve the manifold Metaphors by which the Church, ours, and theirs, is ſet forth, all of them holding forth this Oneneſſe.
Firſt, That of a Tent which is the habitation of ſojourners, Gen. 9. 27. God ſhall enlarge Japhet, and he ſhall dwell in the Tents of Shem, and Canaan ſhall be his ſervant. Shems Tents muſt be poſſeſt by Japhet, and not others built for their habitation, The Tents of Shem, that is, his poſterity by Abraham (which Japhet, that is, the Gentiles by a ſpecial bleſſing did poſſeſſe) is the Church viſible, as needs no proof; Shems Tents, and Japhets Tents are one, and the ſame, Japhet comes to Shems, not Shem to Japhets.
Secondly, That of a Sheep-fold, John 10. 16. Other ſheep I have which are not of this fold, them alſo I muſt bring, and they ſhall hear my voice, and there ſhall be one fold, and one ſhepherd, The Sheep that in preſent were in the fold, viz. Jews, and thoſe not yet taken in, viz. Gentiles, all make up one and the ſame fold; which though ſome may limit to the Church inviſible, becauſe Chriſt gives notes of thoſe that are indeed his ſheep. but that is no argument at all; Chriſt ſpeaks to thoſe that were diſciples only according to profeſſion, and gives notes, of diſciples indeed; and it is againſt all reaſon that Chriſt ſhould in diſcourſe point out the inviſible Church with the demonſtrative This, and that to thoſe that were malignant enough in the Church viſible, namely the Phariſees, as appears in the cloſe of the former Chapter▪ And the mention of thieves creeping into it, hirelings employed in it doth contradict it. The viſible Church of the Jews and Gen tiles, in which Chriſt hath true ſheep for whom he dies, and others that theeues and hirelings do deceive, makes up one ſheepfold.
Thirdly, By a natural body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mans body moſt aptly to this purpoſe, that one new man, Eph. 2. 15. is the viſibly body compact of both Jew and Gentile.
Fourthly, to adde no more, that of a Kingdome, Mat. 8. 11. Many ſhall come from the Eaſt and Weſt, and ſhall ſit down with Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. The ſame Kingdome that Jews leave, Gentiles enter, Matth. 21. 41, 43. The Kingdom of God ſhall be taken from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. That can be no more then the preſence of God in Goſpel-Ordinances, which is without fruit among Jewes (all inviſible Members bring forth fruit) and upon that accout is given to the Gentiles; Neither is it of force that which is ſaid againſt it, Then we muſt be circumciſed. As though we may not be in the ſame Kingdom, and yet under a new way of Adminiſtration, Law-givers on earth, are ſometimes pleaſed to change their Lawes; and ſo doth the Law-giver of Heaven; or if he will limit his inſtance to Circumciſion, taking in no other Lawes, the ſame houſe may have a new doore or porch; let our oppoſites then know that they are in the ſame viſible Kingdom, as Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob and their poſterity after the fleſh in Iſrael were, and I wiſh that they may take heed of making diviſions in it or ſeparations from it.