A Golden Chain

And because Pauls disputation in the 9. to the Romans gives light and sufficient confirmation to this which I now teach, I will stand a little to open and resolve the same. From the 1. verse to the 6. he sets down his grief conceived for his brethren the Jews, and therewithal, that it might not be thought that he spake of malice, he doth only in close and obscure manner insinuate the Rejection of that nation. This done in the 6. v. he answers a secret objection which might be made, on this manner: If the Jews be rejected, then the word of God is of none effect: that is, then the covenant made with the forefathers is void: but the covenant can not be void: therefore the Jews are not ⟨p. 453⟩rejected. The assumption he takes for granted, and denies the consequence of the proposition. And the ground of his denial is, because there is a distinction between man and man, even among the Jews, whereby some are indeed in the covenant, some not. And this distinction is proved by three examples: the first in this verse, that of the children of Jacob the common parent of all the Jews, some are Israel, that is, truly in the covenant as Jacob was: and some are not Israel. Now it might be further objected, that the Jews are not only the posterity of Jacob, but the seed of Abraham in whom all nations of the earth are blessed: and therefore not to be rejected. And to this Paul answers vers. 7. alleging a second example of the distinction between man and man out of the family of Abraham, in which some were indeed sons, some were not. For the proof of this, first he sets down the words of the text in Moses, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: and secondly makes an exposition of them with a collection on this manner: Al they which are the sons of the promise are the seed of Abraham or the sons of God: but Isaac is a son of promise and not Ismael: therefore Isaac is the seed of Abraham and heir of the blessing, and not Ismael. The proposition is in the 8. verse, the assumption in the 9. vers. the conclusion in the 7. verse. Here mark, I. how he makes a double seed, one according to the flesh, the other spiritual: and two kind of sons, one of the flesh, the other son of the promise or the son of God: for he puts the one for the other. II.

And because Pauls disputation in the 9. to the Romanes giues light and sufficient confirmation to this which I nowe teach, I will stand a little to open and resolue the same. From the 1. verse to the 6. he sets downe his griefe conceiued for his brethren the Iewes, and therewithall, that it might not bee thought that he spake of malice, he doth onely in close and obscure manner insinuate the Riection of that nation. This done in the 6. v. he answers a secret obiection which might be made, on this manner: If the Iewes be reiected, thē the word of God is of none effect: that is, then the couenant made with the forefathers is void: but the couenant can not be voide: therefore the Iewes are not