A Christian, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. The Harmonie that notable Chapter, Rom. 11. hath with the former Scriptures; the 15, 16, 17, verſes eſpecially opened.
THAT the Adverſaries of this truth may ſee we want not a harmonie of Scriptures to confirm our judgement, the next place to be conſidered of is that, Rom. 11. eſpecially ver. 15, 16, 17. of that Chapter; which if well weighed, will demonſtrate the holineſs and Church-memberſhip of the Children of believing Gentiles, as much as of the Jews Children that deſcended naturally from Abraham.
The ſcope of the whole Chapter is to diſcover the breaking off, or caſting away of the Jewiſh Nation from being a Church, and the priviledge the Gentiles get by this, & their ingraffing into the ſame root; and the promiſe of the reſtauration of the Jews again, when the fulneſs of the Gentiles ſhould come in; and every one of theſe expreſt with variety of notions, and interlined with many cautions concerning Gods actings in this great diſpenſation. Concerning the full explication of this Chapter, Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Baxter have done worthily, and have with much clearneſs argued for Infants Church-memberſhip from it. I ſhall onelyonly for methods ſake, and your ſatisfaction, open the main and moſt controverted terms in this Chapter concerning this ſubject. As,
1. What this breaking off, or caſting away of the Jews imports, and from what they are broken off; from the viſible or inviſible Church, v. 15.
2. What is meant by the firſt fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches; and how it can be affirmed, that if the root be holy, ſo are the branches, v. 16.
3. What this ingraffing is, and how the Gentiles are ſaid to be ingraffed, and to be partakers of the fatneſs of the Olive, v. 17. For the firſt, This caſting off, and breaking off, is not from the inviſible, but the viſible Church.
1. This will maintain falling away from grace, and pleaſe the Arminians, the great Enemies of the Goſpel of free grace: but this the Apoſtle prevents, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. by anticipation of that Objection, diſtinguiſhing the Elect, and himſelf as one of them, from being caſt off: I ſay then, hath God caſt away his people whom he foreknew? God forbid. I alſo am an Iſraelite, &c. If the caſting off meant here was from the inviſible Church, then Paul and the other Elect among the Jews were caſt off from that Church; but God forbid, ſaith Paul, v. 5. there is a remnant at this preſent time according to the election of grace, whereof Paul was one; therefore it muſt be from the viſible Church they were broken off: But here the Arminians and Pelagians agree with theſe that are againſt Infant-baptiſm, as they do in many other opinions. Mr. Tombes hath nothing to ſay in his Examen of Mr. Marſhals Sermon, to avoid this abſurdity, but only this, pag. 64.
The meaning is not (ſaith he) of ſome of the branches in the inviſible Church; but as when our Saviour Chriſt uſing the ſame ſimilitude, ſaies, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he taketh away: The meaning is, not that any branch in him could be fruitleſs, or taken away; but he calleth that a branch in him, which was ſo in appearance: ſo the Apoſtle ſpeaking of branches broken off, means it not of ſuch as were truly ſo, but ſo in appearance. Thus far he.
Which is a granting of what he denies; for to be a branch in appearance, is only to be a viſible branch; and no branch that is meerly in appearance ſo, and not really, is one of the inviſible Church, nor can ever be ſaid to be broken from it, but only from his viſible ſtate which he hath but (foreign) v. 15, 16. as a branch in outward priviledges, and ſeeming graces.
2. The breaking off, &c. it was of the Jewiſh Nation, of the collective body, though not of every individual, and therefore it muſt needs be from the viſible Church; for as a Nation they were a Church, and the whole Nation was caſt away and rejected; now as a Nation they were not all members of the inviſible Church, ver. 7, 8. with ver. 17.
3. It's a viſible breaking off, therefore cannot be from the inviſible Church, ver. 3, 4, 5. 17, 18, 19. For as Mr. Baxter well obſerves, There can be no viſible removing from an inviſible term.
4. It's a breaking off the naturall branches, ſo he cals the Jews: Now the body of the Jewiſh Church were not naturall branches in a ſpiritual ſenſe; for they believed not as Abraham did; but only called ſo as they were naturally deſcended from his loyns, and were members of the viſible Church, and firſt partakers of the outward priviledges of the Covenant made with him: Thus the Apoſtle diſtinguiſheth of the body of the Jewiſh Nation, Rom. 9. where after he had reckoned up all the priviledges of the Iſraelites in general, ver. 4. Who are Iſraelites, to whom pertains the adoption and the glory, and the Covenants, &c. making way by this to ſhew the ſadneſs of their rejection, in ver. the 6. to prevent the ſame Objection, the Apoſtle in this Chapter ſaith, They are not all Iſrael which are of Iſrael; that is, not all ſpiritual, though all natural brances; and theſe priviledges did viſibly belong to all. As for that diſtinction of Abrahams being a natural and a ſpiritual Father, it may go for currant until they come to apply it, and then it is moſt vain; for all that came from Abraham as a natural Father, had a title to all theſe priviledges forementioned, which belonged to the viſible Church until they did degenerate, and caſt themſelves out, as Iſhmael and Eſau, &c. But of this formerly.
Laſtly, If they were broken off from the inviſible Church, it muſt be either from union with Chriſt, or communion with Chriſt and his Spirit; for this is the true definition of the inviſible Church, that in it ſouls have real union and communion with God in Chriſt through the Spirit: but none of the Jews that were broken off had ſuch a union or communion, and therefore could not be broken off from it: But ſo far they may be ſaid to be broken off from the inviſible Church, as by remote conſequence, as they were excluded from all the means of grace, and the Ordinances; which are the uſual waies and methods of God to bring ſouls into communion with himſelf.
2. Let us conſider what is meant by the firſt fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches: There be many opinions concerning this, eſpecially two muſt be debated; ſome think it Chriſt, as theſe that follow Origen and the allegorical Fathers:Ego aliam ſanctam radicem neſcio, niſi Dominum noſtrum. Origen. But that firſtly and primarily by the firſt fruits, and the lump, and the root, and the branches, cannot be meant Chriſt neither perſonally nor myſtically, is moſt clear if we conſider,
1. Jeſus Chriſt was not the firſt fruits in regard of the whole lump of the Jewiſh Nation, and ſo cannot anſwer to the firſt ſimilitude.
2. Jeſus Chriſt cannot be ſaid to be root unto theſe which were caſt away; no branches really in him are cut off, but ſo were they; for that place of the 15th of John, v. 2. which ſeemeth to ſpeak of ſome branches which are in Chriſt, and yet are taken away for not bearing fruit: it may be better read, and according to the Syriack, thus; Every branch that brings not forth fruit in me, he takes away; that is, that do bring forth ſome ſeeming fruit, but not as in Chriſt as root and principle.
3. In ver. 24. the Jews when they ſhall be called, it's ſaid, They ſhall be graffed into their own Olive: Now Chriſt is not properly their own Olive, but ſo is Abraham, &c.
4. The Jews are ſaid (as formerly) to be natural branches of this root, but ſo they were not of Chriſt; but Chriſt was a natural branch from that ſtock, Rom. 9.5. Whoſe are the Fathers; of whom as concerning the fleſh Chriſt came.
Mr. Tombes himſelf ingenuouſly confeſſeth this, pag. 67. of his Examen, That by the root cannot be meant Chriſt; and gives us the hint of another argument from thoſe expreſſions, v. 24. of ſome branches, wild foreign, according to nature; and of ingraffing in, foreign, contrary to nature, into this Olive; he concludes the root cannot be Chriſt: for Chriſt hath no natural or preternatural branches in him; all are wild ere they be ingraffed into him as a living root: And the other expreſſion, v. 18. of our not bearing the root, but the root us, if we boaſt againſt the Jews, doth evidently demonſtrate, that the root here is not properly meant of Chriſt, though he be the eternal root of all ſpiritual happineſs, ſet forth gloriouſly in many other places of Scripture.
Others by the root mean the Covenant: But the beſt and moſt genuine ſenſe is to interpret it of Abraham; with whom, and with his ſeed as ſo many branches, the Covenant was made, and by which both the root and the branches were made holy: And this anſwers fully to both the ſimilitudes. For,
1. It's an alluſion to the Legal rights about the firſt fruits which were to be offered up to God; and by that all the whole maſs, all the fruits that came after were accounted holy: Thus Abraham was the firſt fruits of the Jews: he believing firſt, and being in Covenant, all the lump, the whole body of the Jewiſh Nation were taken in to be a Church, and were accounted holy.
2. As a root it anſwers to him from whom all the Jews ſprang up, and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges, as their breath: Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Iſa. 51.1, 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen, and the pit out of which they were digged: he means it of Abraham firſt, as appears by the ſecond verſe; Look to Abraham your Father, and to Sarah that bare you; for I called him alone, and bleſſed and increaſed him, &c.
Ob. But what kind of conſequence is this? and how doth the Apoſtle make uſe of this? If the firſt fruits be holy, ſo is the lump; and if the root be holy, ſo are the branches: From what principle doth the Apoſtle argue?
Sol. The Apoſtle in the former verſe ſpeaks of a receiving in again of the Jewiſh Nation, and brings in this as a ground to hope for it, There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches; and argues, that if the root be holy, when the branches broken off ſhall be re ingraffed, they ſhall be holy likewiſe. The like phraſe you have in v. 28. As touching the Goſpel, they are enemies for your ſake; but as touching the Election, they are beloved, foreign, for their Fathers ſake; God having ſo caſt his Election, as to run in that vein moſt eminently: And ſome do render it, They are beloved through their Fathers: But this is clear;
1. That Abraham, or as ſome ſay, Abraham, Iſaac and Iacob were the root.
2. That he argues from the holineſs of the root, to the holineſs of the branches; that is, from them as Parents, to their poſterity as Branches.
3. That this was an uſual and common principle of arguing in Scripture, from the Parent to the Poſterity; for elſe he had ſpoken in the dark, and had proved notum per ignotius, if they could not univerſally reaſon from it; and if you obſerve, he writes it as an Axiom of the greateſt demonſtration, and never ſtands to prove it further.
4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews, and their happy ſtate upon re-ingraffing, to tell them, If the root be holy, ſo are the branches; and they are beloved for the Fathers ſake, if there were not a virtue ſtill in the root to derive holineſs to them, when they ſhould be received in, and ingraffed to their own Olive; he laies all the weight on the root, being ſtill holy and freſh, though the branches be broken off. And what can you make of this as to argumentation? If the root be holy, Ergo the branches: and apply it to Perſons, and Parents, but in a moral and imputative conſideration.
Ob. But holineſs is not propagated by nature, from the Parent to his Child; and we all derive ſin by nature from our Parents; and are, as the Apoſtle ſaith, Eph. 2.2. by nature the Children of wrath, &c. and as David ſaith, Conceived in ſin.
Sol. 1. It's true, we are ſo; and there is no holineſs propagated by nature, take it for internal habits; as a wiſe man doth not convey his wiſedome, or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child, neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child; and in this ſenſe Abraham is not a root, he begets no Believer; and under this conſideration the argument cannot hold; Abraham in this ſenſe is only a root, foreign, exemplary only; Chriſt is foreign, effectually, to convey ſimilar graces: But,
2. There is a holineſs by gratious eſtimation or imputation, which flows from Gods Covenant, or ſome ſpecial priviledge given to ſuch a ſtock, or kindred, or Nation; God taking ſuch a family, ſuch a ſtock, and ſeparates it to himſelf for ſome holy uſe, and ſo bleſſeth them: And thus it was with Abraham, and is moſt common in the Scriptures, and according to the nature of priviledges among men, where the ſon of a Freeman is free, and the ſon of a Nobleman a Nobleman; and by way of alluſion, (though it doth not hold in all particulars) as in juſtification, Chriſts righteouſneſs is imputed, and we accounted holy by it: So as to ſome ſpecial priviledges, the root, the Parent being holy, and in the Covenant, his Child hath the advantage of it; not meritoriouſly from the Parents faith, but virtually through Gods gracious promiſe to the Believer and his ſeed. But,
3. This is not by natural generation, for then it ſhould be to all Children; but by grace and proportion; it's Gods good pleaſure thus to derive the priviledge, and out of ſpecial reſpect to the Parents; and to encourage them in their own faith, and ſtrengthen them in their hopes concerning their ſeed: thus did God chooſe out Abraham and his family from all the world, and bleſſed him; yet it was not from nature his ſeed were more bleſſed then all the world beſides. But as Dr. Willet ſaith well on this place, The branches are holy becauſe of this holy root; not by an actual and inherent holineſs, but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promiſe of God made to believing Fathers and their ſeed; which is the ſame in the New Teſtament as in the Old; and in this ſenſe the argument is ſtrong, and enforcing the ſcope of the Apoſtle. So that though the generation be natural, the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges, and the characteriſtical note of holineſs is given them by grace in the Covenant, which takes in the branches with the root. In no ſenſe beſides can this argument be true, without you make the root Chriſt: which you ſee cannot be meant in this place without great abſurdities.
The third and ſpecial term to be opened, is, what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root, and how they are ingraffed? v. 17, 19.
For the underſtanding of this, Mr. Marſhal hath laid down a ſure poſition, which neither Mr. Tombes, who is the moſt learned Adverſary of this Truth, nor any other hath or can ſhake; and that is, That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles muſt be ſutable to the breaking off the Jews; as they were broken off, ſo are we ingraffed: This the Apoſtle clearly proves in every verſe. In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive, ſpeaking of the Gentiles collectively conſidered, wert ingraffed, foreign, in, amongst them; ſo Grotius tranſlates it, Poſitus es inter ramos illius arboris, Thou art ſet among the branches of that tree; and ſo referring to the firſt words of the verſe, which is implyed, that ſome remained ſtill; for but ſome of the branches were broken off, and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them, and by a ſpecial adoption were partakers of the ſame priviledges; according to that of the Poet Ovid: Venerit inſitio: fac ramum, ramus adoptet. But the beſt reference is to the former part of the verſe, as it ſpeaks of theſe branches which were broken off; the believing Gentiles were ingraffed, (foreign) that is, as Beza and the Syriack tranſlates it, pro ipſis, for them, that is, in ramorum defractorum locum, in the room or ſtead of the branches which were broken off; they were taken away, we ingraffed: Others tranſlate it, cum illis, with them, which remained when we were inſerted: but either interpretation will become the ſenſe of the place.
Now the reaſons which flow from this Text concerning the ſubject which we have in hand, may be eaſier ſlighted then anſwered: This poſition being laid down, We believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant, in the room of the natural branches which were broken off: Now,
1. The Jews and their Children were broken off from the Church, their Children being members as well as themſelves: therefore believing Gentiles and their Children are ingraffed in, the ingraffing in is ſutable to the breaking off: they have nibbled about this reaſon; but the beſt of the Adverſaries have never ſaid any thing yet, as to ſatisfie a rational Saint.
2. Some branches were not broken off; for ſo it's implyed in that he ſaith, If ſome were broken off; and if they were not broken off, then not their Children; for it was not only a breaking off perſonally, but of ſucceſſion, and of their poſterity with themſelves: Now if we be ingraffed among theſe, or with theſe that are not broken off, we and our Children muſt likewiſe be ingraffed in; elſe there will be a ſchiſm between Jew and Gentile, in enjoying the priviledges naturally flowing from the ſame root: No man will be ſo bold as to ſay, that the believing Jews were broken off; and if not they, then not their Children which were then Infants, and had not acted unbelief: For either they muſt be broken off for their own ſins, or their Fathers; not for their Fathers, for ſome of them were Believers, and not broken off; not for themſelves, for ſome of them were Infants; therefore ſome Infants were not broken off; for their Fathers continued in the faith; and we believing Gentiles are ingraffed in among them; therefore our Children alſo.
3. In the latter end, when the Jews ſhall be ingraffed in again to their own Olive, which is promiſed in this Chapter, they and their Children ſhall be taken in, v. 26. And ſo all Iſrael ſhall be ſaved; and our ingraffing in is ſtill ſutable to theirs.
4. The Gentiles are ſaid to partake of the root, and the fatneſs of the Olive tree, in the ſame verſe: this (foreign) ſignifies the full participation and fellowſhip in all the priviledges and advantages of the root, as the Jews had. Now their priviledge was not perſonal to themſelves, but to their poſterity; and therein lay the fatneſs of that Olive, in the fulneſs and large extent of its priviledge and ſeminal vertue, that it comprehended Parent and Child. So that as the Jews caſting off was not only perſonal, but Politique, that is, of them and theirs; ſo our ingraffing in their room is; and as they had the fatneſs of the root and Olive once, ſo have we: Now we could not be ſaid to be, (foreign) To have a mutual fellowſhip with the Jews in the root and fatneſs of it, if we be only perſonally ingraffed, and they and theirs broken off oeconomically; if there be a fellowſhip, it muſt be at leaſt in ſubſtantials: And this was the moſt eminent and ſubſtantial priviledge of the Jews, that they and their poſterity were taken into the ſame Covenant: The Apoſtle opens this further in Eph 3.6.
And eſpecially, if we remember, that their breaking off, and our ingraffing, is into the viſible Church, as is formerly proved, and muſt needs be granted; for all that were broken off, were not broken off from election, and the inviſible Church; neither are all the Gentiles which are ingraffed in, elected, and really of the inviſible Church. So that the reſult is this;
1. That there is a real ingraffing of the believing Gentiles into the ſame root from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off.
2. This breaking off was from the viſible Church, and its priviledges, not from the inviſible; ſo is the ingraffing of us into the viſible Church.
3. As their caſting out was of them and their poſterity, ſo is our graffing in of us and our Children; Theſe concluſions flow naturally from the Text; and all other deductions will be but as dregs after the ſpirits are extracted.
4. And to adde to the reſt this conſideration, That if the poſterity of the Gentiles be not taken in, as the Jews were, there will be the greateſt inequality of the communication of the fatneſs of the root that can be imagined; and the Jews may rather boaſt againſt the believing Gentiles, then they againſt them; ſeeing the root conveyed priviledges to them and their poſterity, but only perſonal priviledges to the believing Gentile; to the one a double mercy, to the other only a ſingle.
Ob. But this great Objection may be made; No Believer is now a root as Abraham, he is but only a branch; and therefore it's not to be conceived how it can be argued from this to every Believer, If the root be holy, ſo are the branches, as it may be to Abraham.
Sol. It's granted, every Believer, nor any, cannot properly be called the root, as Abraham was, and in a ſtrict ſenſe: Yet,
1. They are ingraffed into the ſame root, and convey the ſame priviledges to their branches, as Iſaac, and Jacob, and the twelve Tribes did to their poſterities, who were not properly nor abſolutely the root, but branches of it; and we all know, that a Slip well inoculated or ingraffed, becomes afterwards a natural branch; and receives as much from the root, as theſe which grew naturally on it: So that it's as ſtrong to argue on the Gentiles ſide after ingraffing; If the root be holy, ſo are the branches; as from Abraham to the Jews, who were natural branches; As an adopted ſon, him and his have as full a title to the inheritance as a natural ſon.
There is only this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jews as natural branches, and the ingraffed Gentiles; That the whole body of the Jews, good and bad, were called branches; now only Believers of the Gentiles, who are called by the Goſpel, with their Children, are ingraffed into that root.
2. Though every Believer is not the proper root, but only a branch of that root; yet for being ingraffed, he is naturalized as the Jewiſh branch, and ſo muſt have the ſame priviledge.
3. There are branches of branches; and the pooreſt branch hath ſome twigs, and ſpreading ſprigs growing from them which are of the ſame conſideration, and do receive of the fatneſs of the root as well as the main branches; and in this ſenſe every branch may be ſaid to be the immediate root of the leſſer twigs: Thus Believers ingraffed into the root, are holy, and their Infants that are branches of the branches immediatly ſprouting forth from them, are holy alſo, and under the ſame conſideration; and the argument holds ſtill for the ingraffed branches, as for the natural.
And as Mr. Blake ſaith well, The branches of Anceſtors are roots of poſterity; being made a holy branch, in reference to their iſſue they become a holy root. This might be much more enlarged, but that I would not be voluminous; it's enough that Believers are ingraffed with their Children into the ſame root, as is formerly proved.
And then the argument holds firm, That theſe that are in the root, muſt partake of the fatneſs of it; and they which are in the Covenant, cannot be denied the priviledges of it.