Infant Baptism from Heaven and Not of Men, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Objections againſt the ſecond ſubordinate Propoſition, conſidered and anſwered.
Object. 1.
'TIs conceived by ſome, and that not a few, that what hath been affirm'd in the foregoing Propoſitions, at leaſt the latter of them, lyes in a direct oppoſition to that Text of the Apoſtle, Rom. 9.7, 8. and therefore cannot be true. And thus 'tis objected: How can it be true, that God ſhould intend Abraham's natural Seed (take it of his natural Seed in the ſence of the firſt Poſition) and that as ſuch, in that promiſe, wherein he ingages himſelf to be a God to him and his Seed; or how can it be true, that this promiſe, in that latitude and extent ſhould be given to, and ſetled upon believers under the new Teſtament; when the Apoſtle, having a direct reference to this very promiſe, poſitively affirms, That the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed. Say our Oppoſers, Certainly it cannot be true that God ſhould intend Abraham's natural Seed, that is, the Children of his fleſh, and that meerly as ſuch, in that promiſe; or ſuppoſe that promiſe might have a literal reſpect to Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, yet ſure it cannot be true, that this promiſe is given to, or ſetled upon believers under the new Teſtament, ſo as that God ſhould ſtill ſtand obliged by that propromiſe, to be a God to them and their natural Seed; for the Apoſtle tells us in expreſs words, That the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, but the Children of the promiſe are accounted for the Seed.
For anſwer to this Objection I ſhall, as the Lord ſhall aſſiſt, do theſe two things,
Firſt, Shew that there is no contrariety or repugnancy, between what hath been affirmed in the foregoing Propoſitions, or either of them, and this Text of the Apoſtle.
Secondly, Shew that this place of the Apoſtle rightly underſtood, contributes not a little to the eſtabliſhment and confirmation of what hath been ſaid in the foregoing Propoſitions.
For the firſt, That there is no repugnancy between what hath been affirmed and this Text of the Apoſtle, will ſoon appear, by declaring what is the true and genuine ſenſe of the Apoſtle in theſe verſes: and thus it is agreed on all hends, that the Apoſtles deſign and ſcope is to open and declare how that word or promiſe, wherein God ingaged to be a God to Abraham and his Seed, ſtood firm, and had its full accompliſhment, according to the true intendment of God in it, notwithſtanding the rejection of to great a part of his ſeed.
Beza, I judge, doth reightly ſtate the Queſtion anſwered by the Apoſtle, Qui fieri poſſit ut rejectus ſit Iſrael quin ſimul conſtituendum videatur irritum eſſe pactum Dei cum Abrahamo & ejus ſ…ne. That was the Queſtion, How Iſrael could be rejected, and the Covenant that God, made with Abraham and his Seed, not made void thereby.
Now to this Queſtion the Apoſtle anſwers in a twofold general Aſſertion.
Firſt, That all are not Iſrael that are of Iſrael.
Secondly, That becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham they are not all Children.
Two things might be urged as Reaſons, why the Jews could not be rejected without a failure on Gods part, in his promiſes to them: The latter, which they mainly inſiſted upon, was, That they were the Seed of Abraham, and that God had promiſed to be a God to him and his Seed after him.
To this latter plea the Apoſtle anſwers in this latter aſſertion, and ſhews, that their rejection did not make void that promiſe of God, and in order hereunto explains the true ſenſe and meaning of that promiſe.
This the Apoſtle doth in theſe two verſes; ſo that theſe two verſes contain the Apoſtles expoſition of that grand promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed.
Now that we may rightly underſtand the Apoſtle in the expoſition he gives us of this promiſe, and not miſtake about his expoſition, as the Jews did about the promiſe it ſelf, we muſt inquire into two things.
Firſt, What the Apoſtle denyes.
Secondly, What he affirms, with reference to that promiſe.
For the firſt, And thus the Apoſtle denyes that all that were the Seed of Abraham, and had that promiſe appertaining to them, as his Seed, were the Children of God: Thus verſe 7. Neither becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children, which is explained in the next verſe; where obſerve, when the Apoſtle ſayes, The children of the fleſh, theſe are not the children of God, he muſt be interpreted by the words immediately aforegoing, and his meaning is, they are not all the children of God, for ſo he expreſſes himſelf in the foregoing words. In this eighth verſe the Apoſtle amplifies, and further explains what he had more generally laid down in the ſeventh verſe; whence it is evident, that he ſpeaks of the ſame perſons in both; and anſwerably, as by the children of the fleſh, ver. 8. the ſame perſons are intended that are expreſt by that phraſe, the Seed of Abraham, ver 7. ſo when he ſays of the children of the fleſh, they are not the children of God, he means only, as he had afore expreſt, they are not all the children of God: ſome that were the children of the fleſh, were alſo the children of God, as Iſaac in particular, but all that were the children of the fleſh were not the children of God.
Now I ſay, the Apoſtle denyes that thoſe that were the Seed of Abraham, or the children of the fleſh, were all the children of God: where conſidering what the general deſign and ſcope of the Apoſtle is, viz. to prove the conſiſtency of Iſraels rejection with the truth of that promiſe, by opening and declaring the true mind and meaning of God in it, theſe two things are clearly ſuppoſed and implyed by the Apoſtle.
Firſt, That thoſe who are not the children ot God, whatever reference or reſpect the promiſe had to them, yet might be rejected without breach of promiſe on Gods part.
Secondly, That the promiſe did not neceſſarily preſuppoſe that God had done, or was obliged to do, for every one to whom the promiſe did appertain, what was abſolutely neceſſary to their being or becoming the children of God, in ſuch a ſence as that they could not be rejected without breach of promiſe on Gods part.
Theſe two things the Apoſtle muſt needs imply and ſuppoſe in this Negation: and hence the full of what he denyes is this, That this promiſe, whether taken as a definite promiſe, reſpecting Abraham's natural Seed, as immediately proceeding from his own loins, ſingularly conſidered, or as an indefinite promiſe, reſpecting his whole race and poſterity, collectively conſidered, did oblige God, either to be their God and own them as his people, but upon ſuppoſition of their being his children, or to do that for each particular of them, abſolutely neceſſary to their bearing that denomination of his children.
And if any ask, What that is that is abſolutely neceſſary to a perſons bearing the denomination of a Child of God.
I anſwer two things.
Firſt, Election before time.
Secondly, Suppoſing that perſon grown up to years of maturity, converſion or a ſaving work of grace upon the heart in time.
Now all that the Apoſtle denyes is, That this promiſe did neceſſarily preſuppoſe, that all to whom it was made, were elected or choſen of God actually to inherit the good promiſed, or that the promiſe did oblige God ſavingly to work upon them in time; whence in reſpect of individual and particular perſons, as they might not be elected, ſo they might not be ſavingly converted, and thereupon might be rejected of God, without any breach of promiſe on his part.
Secondly, What the Apoſtle doth affirm with reference to this promiſe; and thus he doth affirm, That the children of the promiſe are accounted for the Seed.
Now here again two things muſt be inquired into.
Firſt, Who the Apoſtle means by the children of the promiſe? And for this, theſe muſt needs be ſuch of Abraham's natural Seed who might rightfully bear that denomination of the children of God; children of the promiſe muſt needs intend ſuch of Abraham's Seed, or ſuch children of his fleſh, who were not only the children of his fleſh, but alſo the children of God. For let it be obſerved, that the queſtion was concerning Abraham's Seed, or the children of his fleſh, and that as ſuch having that promiſe pertaining unto them; whence it will undeniably follow, that both thoſe who were not the children of God, and thoſe who were the children of the promiſe, were Abraham's natural Seed, and conſequently, by the children of the promiſe we muſt underſtand the elect of Abraham's natural Seed, or ſuch who amongſt them had a ſaving work of grace wrought upon them.
Secondly, How they are ſaid to be accounted for the Seed? Now for this: They are ſaid by the Apoſtle, to be accounted for the Seed in ſome peculiar and ſpecial ſence, in which the other of Abraham's Seed, as contradiſtinguiſhed from them, were not accounted for the Seed: Now that can be only in reſpect of their election before time, and their actual injoyment of the good promiſed in time; they cannot be ſaid to be accounted for the Seed in this ſence, as though none but theſe were intended in that promiſe, for the Reaſon before given, viz. Becauſe the queſtion concerning the whole natural Seed of Abraham, and that as they were intended in that promiſe; ſo that they could not be accounted for the Seed, as though they alone were intended in that promiſe; for the Apoſtle grants, yea, the very Queſtion he anſwers, doth neceſſarily ſuppoſe others to be intended in that promiſe beſides them; therefore theſe can be ſaid to be accounted for the Seed only, in the ſence and upon the account beforementioned.
Form all it is evident, that the Apoſtle doth not deny what Abraham's natural Seed, and that as ſuch, were intended in that grand Promiſe of the Covenant; nor doth he affirm, that the children of the promiſe were only accounted for the Seed, in relation to an intereſt in that promiſe: All that he denyes is, That they are all the children of God: And all that he affirms is, That they, in a peculiar and ſpecial ſence, were accounted for the Seed in the eye of that promiſe: So that the plain and genuine meaning of the Apoſtle is this, as if he ſhould ſay, when God promiſed to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed, that doth not preſuppoſe that all his children were elected, or that God was obliged by that promiſe ſavingly to work upon every individual of his Seed; whereupon they might be rejected of God, and yet his word of promiſe receive its full accompliſhment, there being a certain number choſen of God from eternity, whom in time he ſavingly works upon, and who in that regard were eminently intended as the Seed in that promiſe, and in the accompliſhment of the promiſe to them it is fully verified, according to the true intent, mind and meaning of God in it.
Now then what repugnancy or contrariety is there between what hath been affirmed in the foregoing Propoſitions, or either of them, and this Text of Scripture?
We affirm, that when God promiſed to Abraham, to be a God to him and his Seed, he intended his natural Seed as the firſt and next Subjects of this promiſe, and that this promiſe in the ſame latitude and extent is ſetled upon and confirmed to believing Gentiles: the Apoſtle denyes it not only ſaith, that all to whom the promiſe was made are not the children of God, and thereupon might be rejected, and yet the word of promiſe not made void thereby; withall affirming, that there was a certain number in and among this Seed of Abraham, to whom this promiſe did appertain, that were elected of God, who never were rejected, but had the promiſe alwayes made good to them, and in that regard had the denomination of Abraham's Seed peculiarly due to then, and that the promiſe was fully accompliſhed in their injoyment of the good promiſed. Now I ſay, what ſhew of contrariety between what we affirm, and what the Apoſtle ſaith?
Now that this was the true intendment, mind and meaning of God in this promiſe, the Apoſtle proves, by producing a twofold Inſtance, wherein God himſelf declared that to be his ſence and meaning in it.
Firſt, He inſtances in the Subjects of this Promiſe immediately deſcended from Abraham's own loins, theſe were, among others, Iſhmael and Iſaac: and here the Apoſtle ſhews how God declared his true ſence and meaning in that Promiſe, by his chuſing Iſaac actually to inherit the good promiſed, when he paſſed by Iſhmael, who thereupon, through his own ſin, was rejected of God, and caſt out of Covenant: This peculiar choice of Iſaac was ſignified to Abraham by promiſe, At the ſet time will I come, and Sarah ſhall have a Son; by that Promiſe God did tacitely intimate to Abraham, that Iſaac, the Son promiſed him by Sarah, was the perſon choſen for the actual injoyment of the good promiſed; and this choice of Iſaac was a tacite intimation, that Iſhmael was paſſed by, and not deſigned to the joynt inheriting of the good promiſed with Iſaac.
Secondly, The Apoſtle inſtances in the Subjects of this Promiſe mediately deſcended from Abraham, for look what was the ſence of the Promiſe made to Abraham, the ſame was the ſence and meaning of it as made to his Seed; and thus the Apoſtle inſtances in the Children of Iſaac. and ſhews again how God did declare what was his mind and meaning in this Promiſe, as it was made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, viz. That as thereby he intended not infallibly to ſecure the good promiſed to all Abraham's immediate Children, ſo he intended not thereby to ſecure the good promiſed to all the Children of his Seed, as included with them in the Promiſe, as made to them in their Generations; this the Lord declared by his choice of Jacob, when he paſſed by Eſau; which choice was again ſignified to Iſaac by promiſe, The elder ſhall ſerve the younger; by that promiſe God ſignified to Iſaac, that he had choſen Jacob as the perſon that ſhould actually inherit the good promiſed, whereby he intimated his paſſing by of Eſau.
Now upon the warrant of this twoſold inſtance, the Apoſtle declares the ſence afore given, to be according to the mind and meaning of God in this promiſe; and that this is the true ſence and meaning of the Apoſtles expoſition of this Promiſe, is ſufficiently evident from what hath been already ſaid in the explication of the words, where it hath been proved, that the Apoſtle cannot be underſtood, as though he denyed that the natural Seed of Abraham, and that as ſuch were intended in that Promiſe; the Queſtion he anſwers being concerning Abraham's natural Seed, and that as ſuch having that Promiſe appertaining to them: and therefore he cannot be ſuppoſed to deny them to be intended in the Promiſe, the very Queſtion he anſwers taking it for granted, that they were intended.
And if any ſhould ſay, It is true, the Queſtion doth ſuppoſe and take for granted, that the Jews, or the perſons putting it, did conceive, that the Promiſe did intend Abraham's natural Seed, but that was their miſtake, which the Apoſtle rectifies.
But to that I anſwer, The whole context ſhews it was otherwiſe; and that the Apoſtle himſelf doth ſuppoſe it, and take it for granted; The Apoſtle doth not anſwer a Queſtion that might be grounded upon a miſtake about the Subjects of that Promiſe, but he anſwers a Queſtion grounded upon what really was: we ſee he grants ſome to be of Iſrael, that were not Iſrael, and that ſome were that Seed of Abraham, and as ſuch intended in that Promiſe, who yet were not the Children of God; and conſequently he cannot deny Abraham's natural Seed to be intended in that Promiſe, nor affirm the Children of the Promiſe were only accounted for the Seed; but that they are ſo accounted in a peculiar and ſpecial ſence before opened. Now I ſay, that the Apoſtle is thus to be underſtood, I ſhall indeavour to make out a little further, though what hath been already ſaid might ſuffice to thoſe that will but ſeriouſly weigh things.
And for this let it be obſerved, that if the Apoſtle doth not reſtrain this term Seed, in that Promiſe, only to the Elect, then there is nothing at all ſaid by him in this expoſition he gives us of it; ſo much as in the leaſt intimating that the natural Seed of Abraham, and that as ſuch, were not intended in that Promiſe. As for what he denyes, with reference to that Promiſe, there is no one word intimating that Abraham's natural Seed were not intended, he only denyes, that all the Seed of Abraham were the Children of God; which might be true, though they were all intended in that Promiſe, as conditionally made and externally declared to Abraham.
Now if ſo be he doth not reſtrain this term Seed in this Promiſe only to the Elect, and ſo exclude all others univerſally from being intended in it, the natural Seed of Abraham, and that as ſuch, might be, for ought what the Apoſtle hath ſaid, intended in it. And as for what he affirms, though the Elect were in a peculiar and ſpecial ſence intended, yet others might be alſo intended, though not in that peculiar and ſpecial ſence in which they were.
Now that the Apoſtle doth not expound this term Seed, as meant only of the Elect, is evident by theſe three Reaſons.
Firſt, Becauſe then he ſhould in expreſs words contradict God himſelf, God having declared that he intended ſome in that Promiſe, who were not elected, this is evident in Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. where the Lord tells the people of Iſrael, he now entred into, or rather renewed Covenant with them, to fulfil this very Promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed: and certainly he muſt needs refer to this very Promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his Seed: and certainly he muſt needs refer to this very Promiſe made to Abraham. Only to prevent miſtakes, and that I may not be ſuppoſed to contradict both the Truth and my ſelf, let it be noted, that I do not ſay they were intended in that Promiſe, ſo as that they had meerly, as of Abraham's natural Race and Poſterity, an actual right to, and intereſt in that Promiſe; but my meaning is only this, That as that Promiſe had an indefinite reſpect to Abraham's whole Race and Poſterity, collectively taken, and as theſe particular perſons, with whom God now renewed his Covenant, were afore appointed of God to be ſome of thoſe who ſhould have the benefit of the Promiſe, ſo theſe were intended in it, and anſwerably theſe were intended, not immediately and directly, but conſequently as they were foreſeen and fore appointed by God, to be the peculiar perſons that ſhould have the Promiſe, as indefinitely made to Abraham's Seed, collectively taken, made good to them. Now who can ſuppoſe that every individual Member, whether Infants or grown Perſons in this Congregation, were elected or choſen actually to injoy the good promiſed? Now if the Apoſtle ſhould reſtrain this Promiſe only to the Elect, he muſt needs contradict God in this declaration here made of his mind in it. God declares plainly, he intended ſome not elected; and ſhould the Apoſtle ſay, he intended only the Elect, that would be a direct contradiction of God himſelf.
Secondly, That the Apoſtle cannot expound this term Seed, as meant only of the Elect, is evident, becauſe at leaſt many perſons intended in that Promiſe might be ordinarily known to men to be the perſons intended in it; but now the Elect cannot ordinarily be known by men, and that at leaſt many intended in this Promiſe might ordinarily be known to be the perſons intended in it, is evident, becauſe there was a duty injoyned, with reference to them; this duty was the application of the Token of the Covenant. Now had the Elect only been intended, it had been impoſſible for that duty to be univerſally performed by man, with reference to them.
Thirdly, This is evident, becauſe the Promiſe did conſtitute ſome of Iſrael, who yet were not elected, therefore the Apoſtle cannot be ſuppoſed to reſtrain the term Seed only to the Elect.
But two things will be ſaid by way of reply to what hath been hitherto diſcourſed, for the clearing up the ſence and meaning of the Apoſtle in this expoſition he here gives of that Promiſe.
Firſt, It will be ſaid, That all thoſe that make this Objection do not deny but, ſome do grant, that that proiſe did in ſome ſence intend, and had reſpect to Abraham's natural Seed, and that as ſuch, viz. as it was a promiſe of a temporal good, or containing only a temporal belſſing, that which theſe deny is this, viz. That this Promiſe (as a Promiſe of ſaving Grace, of Juſtification and Lefe) had reſpect to the natural Seed of Abraham, as ſuch; and that is the meaning of the Apoſtle when he ſayes, The Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed, he menas, they any they only are accounted for the Seed, reſpective to that Promiſe, as it was a promiſe of ſaving Grace: The Apoſtle grants the Promiſe was made to Abraham's natural Seed, but there ſhews what their miſtake was, that did ſuppoſe the Promiſe would be made void, in caſe the Jews ſhould be rejected, and ſhews this to be thier miſtake, That they ſuppoſed that this Promiſe, as it was a Promiſe of ſaving Grace, did appertain to the natural Seed of Abraham, as ſuch.
Now this miſtake the Apoſtle rectifies, and ſhews, that as ſuch a ſpiritual Promiſe, it did not at all reſpect Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, but was made only to the Elect, they only were accounted for the Seed, reſpective to this Promiſe as ſo underſtood.
To that I anſwer two things.
Firſt, Let it be obſerved, that the preſent framers of this Objection, in the ſence now expreſſed, do grant, that the Promiſe in ſome ſence did intend Abraham's natural Seed, and that as ſuch; whence it will follow, that if it be evident, that it intended not only a temporal, but a ſpiritual good, as made to Abraham's Seed univerfally, as well as to himſelf, of which by and by, then our firſt Propoſition is true by the grant at leaſt of ſome of our Oppoſers, they granting that in a ſence it did intend them.
But you will ſay, Whatever Argument may be offered, yet the Apoſtle ſhews plainly, that as it was a Promiſe of ſaving Grace, it was made only to the Elect, for ſaith he, taking the Promiſe in this ſence, The Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed, and we muſt believe the Apoſtle whatever Argument may ſeem to prove the contrary.
I anſwer to this.
Secondly, Conſider the Apoſtle doth no more reſtrain this Promiſe, as a Promiſe of ſaving Grace to the Elect, than the doth reſtrain it to them as a Promiſe of a meer temporal good, if he doth not reſtrain it to them wholly, and in an abſolute ſence, he doth not reſtrain it to them at all; for obſerve it, in caſe he reſtrains it as a ſpiritual Promiſe, and not as a temporal Promiſe, to the Elect, that limited reſtraint muſt be expreſt either in the words themſelves, or inferr'd from the Context or the Apoſtles ſcope in them. For the words themſelves, there is nothing intimating ſuch a limited reſtraint, for ſayes he, The Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed. He doth not ſay, the Children of the fleſh are not intended in that Promiſe, as a Promiſe of ſaving Grace So the Children of the Promiſe are accounted for the Seed; not are accounted for the Seed, as that Promiſe was a Promiſe of ſaving Grace.
But it will be ſaid, When he ſayes of the Children of the fleſh, they are not the Children of God, 'tis all one as if he had ſaid, they were not intended in that Promiſe, as it is a Promiſe of ſaving Grace.
To that I anſwer: 'Tis not all one, in as much as 'tis poſſible, that perſons may be under a Promiſe of ſaving Grace, as made conditionally to them, and yet not be the Children of God, in the ſence of the Apoſtle, nor ever become the Children of God in that ſence: So that unleſs it can be proved, that none can be under a Promiſe of ſaving Grace, as conditionally made, or under a Promiſe of ſaving Grace as indefinitely made to ſome ſpecies or ſort of perſons, collectively taken, unleſs they are either at preſent the Children of God, or ſhall infallibly become ſo for the future, it cannot be ſaid, 'tis all one to ſay, that for the Apoſtle to deny the natural Seed of Abraham to be the Chilnten of God, and to deny they are intended in that Promiſe, as a Promiſe of ſaving Grace, becauſe they might be intended in that Promiſe, and yet never be the Children of God. Perſons may be under a conditional promiſe, or an indefinite promiſe of ſaving Grace, and yet cannot be from thence denominated in an abſolute ſence to be the Children of God, nor proved thereby, that they ſhould even become ſo; ſo that ſuch a limited reſtraint of this promiſe to the Elect only, is not in the leaſt intimated in the words themſelves.
Secondly, For, the context and ſcope of the Apoſtle neither doth infer ſuch a limited reſtraint of the Promiſe to the Elect only, or a neceſſity of putting ſuch conſtruction upon the words; this is evident from what hath been already ſaid in explaining the ſence and meaning of them: The words, as afore opened, as fully agree to and anſwer the Apoſtles deſign and ſcope, as if they were underſtood with a limited reſtraint, they would do, and do as fully anſwer and ſatisfie the Queſtion or Objection he was to anſwer.
This is ſo plain, that it would be ſuperfluous to add any thing more than what hath been already ſaid: So that there is nothing in the words themſelves, or that can be deduced from the Context, or the Apoſtles deſign and ſcope in them, to neceſſitate our underſtanding the Apoſtle to intend any ſuch limited reſtraint of this promiſe to the Elect only; if it be not wholly and abſolutely reſtrained to them, it is not reſtrained to them at all, for ought what appears from the Text of the Apoſtle.
Now our Oppoſers themſelves grant, That in ſome ſence the promiſe was not reſtrained to the Elect, but did intend Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, and therefore we may conclude it was not at all reſtrained to them.
But it will be ſaid ſecondly, That though it be granted, that this promiſe, as intending both temporal and ſpiritual bleſſings, did intend, and was made to Abraham's natural Seed, and that as ſuch, and conſequently that the Covenant did take in Abraham's natural Seed under the firſt Teſtament, as is affirmed in the firſt Propoſition, yet the Apoſtle here ſhews, that now under the Goſpel adminiſtration it ſhould be ſo no longer.
Now the Children of the fleſh are not the Children of God in any ſence, but the Children of the Promiſe, that is, true Believers are only accounted for Abraham's Seed.
To that I anſwer, 'Tis evident from the Context, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks not at all of the extent and latitude in which the Covenant ſhould be made with, or continued to Believers under the New Teſtament, for the Queſtion he is anſwering doth not all immediately and directly concern Believers under the New Teſtament, but wholly immediately and directly concerns the Jewes. And obſerve it, What an anſwer ſhould the Apoſtle return to the propoſed Queſtion, according to the judgment of thoſe that make this reply.
The Queſtion was, How could Iſrael be rejected, and God remain true to his Word of promiſe made to Abraham their Father, with reference unto them.
Now what doth the Apoſtle anſwer to this Queſtion?
Why, according to the Judgment of theſe men he anſwers, That though the Covenant was made with Abraham and his natural Seed, yet now it is only made with Believers themſelves, and extends not to their natural Seed, as it did during the firſt Teſtament adminiſtration.
And what had that been to the purpoſe, not only the Jewiſh Infants, but the Parents themſelves were rejected.
I, you will ſay, That Parents were caſt off as well as their Seed is granted, yea, that is the very deſign of the Apoſtle to ſhew, that now under the Goſpel adiminiſtration the Jews themſelves, though Abraham's natural Seed, could no longer continue the people of God, upon the account of their fleſhly deſcent from Abraham, unleſs they did perſonally believe themſelves, and they not believing, both they and their Children were rejected from thoſe priviledges they had hitherto injoyed, upon the account of their natural deſcent from Abraham.
To this I anſwer two things.
Firſt, I deny that the Jews had their Covenant ſtate and relation, and conſequently their abiding, in the Houſe or Family of God continued to them hitherto, upon the account of their natural deſcent from Abraham, as hath been already declared, and might be further manifeſted if needful: Hence this could not be the deſign of the Apoſtle, to ſhew the ceſſation of that priviledge, becauſe there was no ſuch priviledge heretofore vouchſafed to them, the promiſe conſidered as a definite promiſe, did not extend beyond Abraham's natural Seed, immediately proceeding from his own loins.
Secondly, I anſwer, That that Promiſe, as an indefinite promiſe made to Abraham, with reference to his natural Seed, taken collectively, doth ſtill appertain to the Jews, notwithſtanding the rejection of ſo great a part of them: This the Apoſtle grants in this diſcourſe, and ſhews how it had in part its accompliſhment in the nonrejection of many of them, and ſhall have its full accompliſhment in the general converſion of that Nation in the Ages yet to come. See Rom. 11.1, 16, 25. So that this cannot be the meaning of the Apoſtle, becauſe their preſent ſtanding in their Covenant-relation with God, from which they were now cut off, was not upon the meer account of their natural deſcent from Abraham, and the Promiſe, according to the true intent of God in it, doth ſtill appertain to them, notwithſtanding their rejection, therefore we muſt neceſſarily underſtand the Apoſtle, according to the ſence and meaning afore given.
I come now to the ſecond thing promiſed, and that is to ſhew, that this Text of the Apoſtle rightly underſtood, and taken in conjunction with the Context, is ſo far from carrying any contrariety to what hath been affirm'd that it adds not a little to the confirmation of it. Yea, I dare boldly ſay, that had there been no other Scriptures to prove the truth of it, my firſt Propoſition would be, paſt all rational contradiction, eſtabliſhed from this very Text; and my ſecond Propoſition may receive no little confirmation from it.
For let it be obſerved, the Apoſtle doth plainly grant, yea, implicitly aſſert, that ſome were the Seed of Abraham, and that as ſuch, were the Subjects of that promiſe, who yet were not the Children of God, and in that regard were not accounted for the Seed, whence it is evident, that the ſame perſons might be the Seed of Abraham, and as ſuch intended in that promiſe, and yet in another ſence were not acounted for the Seed: they were his Seed, that is, the Seed of his fleſh, or his natural Seed, and as ſuch had the promiſe appertaining to them; but they were not the Children of God, and in that regard not accounted for the Seed, that is, not intended in this promiſe, as the perſons deſigned from eternity, actually to injoy the good promiſed; and that notwithſtanding according to the Apoſtles intendment in this term Seed, they were not accounted for the Seed, yet they were the fleſhly Seed of Abraham, and as ſuch intended in that promiſe, as the joynt Subjects of it, with others, here ſaid by the Apoſtle, in a ſpecial ſence, to be accounted for the Seed, is part all rational doubt evident from the Apoſtles anſwer to the forementioned Queſtion, taken in conjunction with the Inſtances produced by him, for the proof of what he aſſerts in that Anſwer.
Let but the words be carefully obſerved: Saith the Apoſtle, Neither becauſe they are Abraham's Seed, are they all Children, that is, the Children of God: Whence it is evident, that ſome are the Seed of Abraham, who were not the Children of Gods, and that when the Apoſtle grants, ſome were the Seed of Abraham, who were not the Children of God, his meaning is, that they had, as the Seed, or natural Children of Abraham, this promiſe appertaining unto them, is evident.
Firſt, Becauſe the Queſtion he was to anſwer wholly concern'd the natural Seed of Abraham, and that as ſuch, having that pro"miſe appertaining unto them, as before obſerved: hence undoubtedly when in way of anſwer to this Queſtion he faith, becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, they are not all the Children of God, he muſt needs ſpeak of the ſame perſons that the Queſtion doth concern, otherwiſe his anſwer had been no wayes pertinent to the Queſtion.
Secondly, This is evident from the Inſtances that the Apoſtle produces to prove what he had aſſerted in this anſwer; and thus he inſtance in Iſaac, and Jacob, and ſhews how they were elected, and in that regard accounted for the Seed; where the Apoſtle muſt needs have reference to ſome others coming in competition with them, in regard of their ſtanding in a like capacity reſpective to the promiſe as externally made and declar'd to Abraham: plainly thus the Apoſtle muſt needs have reference to ſome others who were Abraham's Seed, and as ſcuh had a common external right to, and intereſt in the promiſes with Iſaac and Jacob; and theſe were Iſhmael and Eſau; did not the Apoſtle ſuppoſe and grant, that they ſtood in the like capacity, reſpective to theſe promiſes, as externally made and declared to Abraham, with Iſaac and Jacob, the producing of theſe two Inſtance had made nothing to his purpoſe, nor had been any proof of what he had before aſſerted, in way of anſwer to the Queſtion propoſed; for the Apoſtle to aſſert, that all that are Abraham's Seed are not the Children of God, and that by way of anſwer to the forementioned Queſtion, and then only to declare how Iſaac and Jacob, the one of Abraham's Seed, immediately proceeding from his one loins, the others of his Race and Poſterity, were intended in this promiſe, as made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, as being elected, and not to ſuppoſe and grant, that there were ſome others, who were alike, either of Abraham's immediate Seed, or of his Race and Poſterity, intended in this promiſe, who were not elect, had made nothing at all to his preſent purpoſe, but would indeed have evidenced the quite contrary to what he affirms. Whence it appears, in as full evidence as though written with the beams of the Sun, that the Apoſtle doth grant, the both Iſhmael and Eſau were the Subjects of this promiſe, the one as one of Abraham's Children, immediately proceeding from his own loins, the other included in the promiſe, as made to Abraham's Seed in their Generations, and conſequently that the promiſe did belong to Abraham's natural Seed, as ſuch, which undoubtedly eſtabliſhes the truth of my firſt Propoſition, and no way oppoſes, but rather confirms the ſecond.