A Golden Chain

Against this received exposition of the former words which I have now propounded, sundry exceptions are made. First, that the prerogative of Isaac above Ismael, and Jacob above Esau, was only in temporary blessings, in that God vouchsafed unto them the right of the land of Canaan. Ans. If these places are to be understood of temporal blessings and not spiritual, then the Apostle hath not fitly alleged the former examples, to prove the rejection of the Jews from the Covenant. For though it be granted, there be a difference between man and man, in respect of earthly blessings, yet doeth it not follow that there shall be the same difference in things concerning the kingdom of heaven. If a father for some cause disinherit one or two of his children, it were absurd thereupon to conclude that he might therefore kill any of the rest. Again, the land of Canaan was not only an earthly inheritance, but also a pledge and figure unto our forefathers of a better inheritance in heaven: and therefore the excluding of Ismael and Esau from the land of Canaan was a sign that they were excluded from the covenant of grace, and the right of eternal life. Some others say, that by Jacob and Esau are not meant two persons, but the two nations of the Idumeans and the Israelites. Ans. It is a manifest untruth. For it was not possible for two nations to strive in the womb of Rebecca, unless we considered them as they were comprehended under the two heads, to wit, the very persons of Jacob and Esau. And whereas they say that Esau in person never served Jacob, but only in his posterity, the answer is, that Jacobs freedom and prerogatives were spiritual, and not temporal, which by faith he saw a far off, but enjoyed not: and therefore proportionally Esau was debased to the condition of a servant in respect of his younger brother, not so much in respect of his outward estate and condition, as in regard of the covenant made with his ancestors from which he was barred. And though it be granted that by Jacob and Esau ⟨p. 455⟩two nations and not two persons are to be understood, yet all comes to one head, for the receiving of the nation of the Israelites into the covenant, and the excluding of the nation of the Edomites, both descending of Jacob and Esau, serve as well to prove Gods eternal election & reprobation, as the receiving and rejecting of one man.

Against this receiued exposition of the former words which I haue nowe propounded, sundrie exceptions are made. First, that the prerogatiue of Isaac aboue Ismael, and Iacob aboue Esau, was only in temporarie blessings, in that God vouchsafed vnto them the right of the land of Canaan. Ans. If these places are to bee vnderstood of temporall blessings and not spirituall, then the Apostle hath not fitly alleadged the former examples, to prooue the reiection of the Iewes from the Couenant. For though it be graunted, there be a difference betweene man and man, in respect of earthly blessings, yet doeth it not followe that there shall be the same difference in things concerning the kingdome of heauen. If a father for some cause disinherit one or two of his children, it were absurd thereupon to conclude that he might therefore kil any of the rest. Againe, the land of Canaan was not onely an earthly inheritance, but also a pledge and figure vnto our forefathers of a better inheritance in heauē: and therefore the excluding of Ismael and Esau from the land of Canaan was a signe that they were excluded from the couenant of grace, and the right of eternall life. Some others say, that by Iacob and Esau are not meant two persons, but the two nations of the Idumeans and the Israelites. Ans. It is a manifest vntrueth. For it was not possible for two nations to striue in the wombe of Rebecca, vnlesse wee considered them as they were comprehended vnder the two heads, to wit, the verie persons of Iacob and Esau. And whereas they say that Esau in person neuer serued Iacob, but onely in his posteritie, the answer is, that Iacobs freedome and prerogatiues were spirituall, and not temporall, which by faith he saw a farre off, but inioyed not: and therefore proportionally Esau was debased to the condition of a seruant in respect of his younger brother, not so much in respect of his outward estate and condition, as in regard of the couenant made with his auncestours from which hee was barred. And though it bee graunted that by Iacob and Esau